Karnataka High Court questions conduct of transport official in entering private premises and seizing Lamborghini car

Karnataka High Court scrutinizes a transport official's seizure of a Lamborghini from private premises without notice to the owner.

The High Court of Karnataka has questioned the conduct of a Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector (SMVI) in entering the private premises of the owner of a Lamborghini Huracan Evo car, seizing the vehicle in the owner’s absence, and towing it to an “undisclosed” police station, based on the allegation of the owner paying less road tax by “forging” documents.

The court also stayed the investigation against H1 Car Care, Sahakarnagar, Bengaluru, which owns the car, based on the First Information Report (FIR) registered by Kodigehalli police based on the complaint lodged by SMVI Ranjith N., who had entered the private premises and seized the vehicle without issuing any notice to the owner despite the claim that there was a short payment of road tax amount.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the interim order on the petition filed by H1 Car Care, owned by J. Ramakrishnaiah. The petitioner had purchased the vehicle from an authorised dealer, Hoysala Automotives Pvt. Ltd., at a cost of ₹3,00,68,729, and paid ₹ 1 crore as GST and ₹60 lakh as road tax to the State’s Transport Department and registered it.

While giving an opportunity to the State Public Prosecutor (SPP) to show that the actions of the SMVI were as per the provisions of the law, the Court cautioned that it would not hesitate to order an inquiry against him if the actions were found to be illegal. The SMVI may also have to pay from his pocket for the damages caused to the vehicle, the Court indicated in the presence of Mr. Ranjith, who was summoned to the court on February 12.

“The SMVI, the complainant, after registration of the crime, in the absence of the petitioner or in the absence of any notice to the petitioner, enters the house, goes to the garage, tows the vehicle himself and takes it away. The petitioner then approaches every police station to get to know where the vehicle was. The petitioner is made to run from pillar to post,” the court noted.

Interestingly, when the petitioner filed an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate for the release of the seized car, the Kodigehalli police told the magistrate the car was not in their custody and also did not reveal where the car was, the Court noted.