A de facto complainant must cooperate with the investigation and produce relevant case property.

The petitioner finance company had lodged a complaint alleging that its staff, in collusion with an appraiser, misappropriated jewels and cash.

The complaint was registered as Crime No. 436 of 2025 under Sections 408 and 420 IPC.

During the investigation, the first respondent directed the company by letter to produce specified pledged jewels and related records.

The company sought certiorari to quash the letter, raising concern that the jewels and records could be retained as case property.

The letter incorrectly referred to Crime No. 436 of 2026; the Court treated this as a clerical error because the FIR in the record showed Crime No. 436 of 2025.

Whether the police letter directing the petitioner to produce jewels and related records during the investigation should be quashed

Whether the petitioner could auction the jewels connected with the crime before the competent court addressed their status

Article 226 of the Constitution was invoked for certiorari.

The Court stated that a de facto complainant should cooperate with the investigating agency and assist the investigation.

It further indicated that, if the police retained the jewels as case property, the petitioner could seek their return by applying to the jurisdictional Magistrate, subject to that court’s orders.

The FIR was registered under Sections 408 and 420 IPC; the judgment cited no precedent or specific statutory provision governing production or return of the property.

The Court declined to halt the investigation at the instance of the de facto complainant, observing that the petitioner should assist the police by producing the requested jewels and records.

It considered the incorrect crime-year reference in the letter a clerical error, since the FIR identified the case as Crime No. 436 of 2025.

The petitioner’s concern that the property might be retained was addressed by leaving it to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for return.

Given that the jewels were connected with the investigation and had been notified for auction, the Court directed that they not be auctioned before the competent court’s order.

The petitioner was restrained from auctioning the jewels connected with Crime No. 436 of 2025 until an order was obtained from the competent court; it could thereafter pursue its remedy before the Magistrate.