Smt Gomi @Gomee@ Gomee Shailesh vs. State By

Facts

The petitioner, Smt. Gomi, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside a search warrant dated September 15, 2021, issued by the JMFC II Court, Davanagere, and the subsequent seizure dated September 16, 2021. The FIR was lodged by the second respondent alleging that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had purchased wholesale gold with the intention to cheat and had not paid the sale consideration. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer obtained a search warrant that included the petitioner's shop, Sri Sai Jewelers. The petitioner's grievance is that her business is independent of accused No. 1's business, and she is merely the wife of accused No. 1. The search and seizure were conducted without any material indicating joint business operations.

Held

The Court held that the search warrant issued for the premises of the petitioner, Sri Sai Jewelers, was not tenable in law. The petitioner produced Form GST REG-6, which confirmed that Sri Sai Jewelers is her proprietary concern. The Court noted that Sri Om Sai Jewelers is the proprietary concern of accused No. 1. In the absence of any material indicating that the petitioner had any business transaction with the complainant or that the gold purchased by accused No. 1 from the complainant was in the petitioner's possession, the search of the petitioner's shop premises could not have been conducted. Consequently, the subsequent seizure of gold from the petitioner's premises was vitiated. The Court quashed the search warrant and directed the release of the seized articles belonging to the petitioner, subject to her executing a personal bond for the value of the seized gold and furnishing one surety for the like sum.

Key Issues

1. Whether the search warrant issued for the premises of the petitioner, Sri Sai Jewelers, was legally tenable, considering the petitioner's business is stated to be independent of the business of accused No. 1, and the petitioner is merely the wife of accused No. 1, thereby vitiating the subsequent seizure of gold ornaments? Petitioner's contention: The search warrant was obtained by misleading the court. The petitioner's business, Sri Sai Jewelers, is a proprietary concern owned by her, distinct from Sri Om Sai Jewelers, which is the proprietary concern of accused No. 1. There is no material to suggest any business transaction between the petitioner and the complainant, or that the gold purchased by accused No. 1 from the complainant is in the petitioner's possession. Therefore, the search and seizure are vitiated. Revenue/State's contention: The investigation is ongoing. If it is established that the petitioner purchased gold from the complainant, the seized gold should be returned to the complainant. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 (complainant) submitted that the business transaction was with accused Nos. 1 and 2, not the petitioner, but whether the petitioner's business is independent requires investigation.