The Supreme Court of India has dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Jammu and Kashmir, reaffirming the legal principle that the power of a police officer to seize property under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) does not include the authority to attach, seize, or seal immovable property. A bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan upheld a High Court order directing the release of a seized shop, citing a binding precedent set by a larger bench of the Apex Court.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from an FIR (No. 09 of 2001) registered under Sections 420, 406, and 120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code against the management of M/s United Endowment India Ltd. The respondent in the present appeal, Surain Singh Langeh, had purchased a shop located at K.C. Plaza, Jammu, from Bashir Ahmad Manhas, a director of the said company, through a registered sale deed on May 3, 2003.
Subsequently, on July 30, 2003, the police seized the property. Mr. Langeh filed an application before the Trial Court seeking the release of the shop. On March 10, 2005, the Trial Court ordered the property to be released to Mr. Langeh on supurdnama, with the condition that no third-party interest be created.
High Court’s Finding and State’s Appeal
The State challenged the Trial Court’s decision before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu. The High Court, in its order dated March 7, 2006, opined that immovable property could not be seized by the police under the relevant legal provisions and directed its release to the respondent. It is this order that the State of Jammu and Kashmir challenged before the Supreme Court.
Arguments and Court’s Analysis
Before the Supreme Court, the judgment noted that the counsel for the appellant-State had placed reliance on the case of State of Maharashstra v. Tapas D. Neogy (1999). However, the bench observed that the Tapas D. Neogy case was not directly applicable as it primarily dealt with whether a bank account could be considered ‘property’ under Section 102 Cr.P.C., not with the seizure of immovable property.
The Supreme Court bench pointed out that the central legal question in the appeal was authoritatively settled by a three-judge bench in the case of Nevada Properties Private Limited, Through its Directors versus State of Maharashtra and another (2019). The Court quoted the definitive finding from paragraph 34 of the Nevada Properties judgment:
“In view of the aforesaid discussion, the reference is answered by holding that the power of a police officer under Section 102 of the Code to seize any property, which may be found under circumstances that create suspicion of the commission of any offence, would not include the power to attach, seize and seal an immovable property.”
The Court further noted that the earlier judgment in Tapas D. Neogy had been distinguished by the larger bench in the Nevada Properties case.
Decision
Given that the legal issue was conclusively decided by a larger bench, the Supreme Court found no merit in the State’s appeal. In its order dated July 23, 2025, the Court concluded, “In view of the fact that the legal issue involved in this appeal has been answered by the larger Bench of this Court, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.”
