The division bench of the Bombay High Court, comprised of Justices Sunil B. Shukre and M. W. Chandwani, severely reprimanded a police officer for seizing a man's home under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code despite the fact that such seizures of immovable property are not permitted under the said provision.

The Nagpur bench remarked, "In the name of taking action against criminals, outlaws and offenders in serious crimes, no Investigating Officer can flout the procedural requirements, can breach the limits of law, can openly disrespect the law declared by the highest Court of the land and thus, proclaim himself to be the law unto himself".

The Court further said "The IO 'brazenly' disregarded the law, according to the court, and is attempting to establish his dominance over the law of the land. "Such an attempt must be thwarted at the earliest opportunity or otherwise servant will become master of law and the master will be consigned to a lifetime of servitude of such servant".

The Supreme Court ruled unequivocally in Nevada Properties Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra that a police officer cannot lawfully seize a moveable property under section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

According to the court, a police officer is only permitted to seize an item under Section 102 during an investigation if it will be utilised as evidence to support the accusation against the defendant and can be physically shown before the trial court.

As a result, the investigating officer was given the chance by the court, at the time the petition was admitted, to comprehend the proper legal position and present a proposal to fix his error. The IO presented an affidavit and a copy of the letter he had sent on December 12, 2022, to the Sub Registrar Class II, Nagpur City No. 4, Nagpur, during the final hearing.

According to the court, the IO is unaware of his error and believes that whatever he did was appropriate. The claim that IO only notified the Sub Registrar is only partially accurate because the letter from IO to the Sub Registrar makes a particular request for the Sub Registrar to update his record rather than just providing information. The court noted that the IO asked to replace the entry in the record that corresponded to the challenged seizure notice with another entry stating that the procedure of issuing a notification under Sections 4 and 8 of the MPID Act is ongoing.

The court ruled that this request to modify the record would interfere with the Sub Registrar's ability to perform her duties. The court determined that the intimation letter amounted to an abuse of the IO's authority as well as a usurpation of Civil Court authority.

The court declared that while it would support any legal measures taken by the IO to find the offenders, it would not condone criminal actions. As a result, the court reversed the Additional Sessions Judge's decision as well as the notice of seizure of the petitioners' property.

The court further ordered the higher police authorities to prevent any IO from seizing immovable property in violation of section 102 of the CrPC and to give the necessary instructions to all IOs operating in the state so that they abide by the law.

Case Title – Vikram S/o Madhukar Labhe and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
Case no. – Criminal Writ Petition No. 636/2020