The Jharkhand High Court recently held that the police cannot seize immovable property under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) without an order from a competent court of law.

Relying on Nevada Properties Pvt Ltd v. State of Maharashtra & Anr, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi ordered to unseal the premises of a factory owned by the petitioner who was accused of engaging in illegal coal trade.

"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." 

The case revolved around an FIR 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 argued that the case was malicious and that his factory had been inspected by competent authorities on numerous occasions. It was contended that certain allegations, such as those under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, were not maintainable due to procedural irregularities.

The court found that the petitioner had provided sufficient documentation to demonstrate the valid operation of the factory, including licenses, consent to operate, and communications related to coal processing and transportation.

The court referred to precedent judgments and established that immovable property could not be seized under Section 102 of the CrPC. Citing the judgment in the case of Nevada Properties Private Limited, the court emphasized that police officers could not seize immovable property solely based on suspicion. It was concluded that since Section 102 of CrPC did not grant the power to seize immovable property, the police could not exercise such authority without an order from a competent court.

As such, the 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

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 35

Case No.: W.P.(Cr.) No. 225 of 2023

Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. R.S Mazumdar and Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar

Click Here to Read/Download Order