Recently, in a recent decision, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi of the Jharkhand High Court affirmed that the seizure of immovable property under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is impermissible without a court-issued order

This ruling was based on the precedent set in the case of Nevada Properties Pvt Ltd v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Consequently, the court ordered the premises of a factory owned by the petitioner, who was accused of involvement in illicit coal trading, to be unsealed.

"It is well settled that immovable property cannot come within the purview of Section 102 Cr.P.C., as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nevada Properties Private Limited (supra). In paragraph 32 of the said judgment, it has been held that the police officer cannot be allowed to seize immovable properties on mere suspicion of the commission of any offence ... When Section 102 Cr.P.C. does not give power to seize immovable property, that power cannot be utilized by the police in absence of any order of the competent court of law."

In a said matter, an FIR was registered against the petitioner, alleging their involvement in illegal coal trade under the guise of dealer registration.

It was alleged that the petitioner's factory was operating without complying with the required permits, including consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board. The petitioner approached the Court seeking to quash ṭhe criminal proceedings pending against him.

The petitioner put forth the argument that the case against him was malicious in nature. He asserted that his factory had undergone multiple inspections by competent authorities in the past. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that certain allegations, specifically those related to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, were not sustainable due to procedural irregularities.

The court concluded that the petitioner had presented ample documentation to establish the lawful operation of the factory. This documentation included licenses, consent to operate permits, as well as communications pertaining to coal processing and transportation.

he court disposed of the petition and allowed the unsealing of the factory premises, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the law while exercising such powers.

Case Title: Abhay Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors