Does the expression ‘any property’ appearing in Section 102 of the CrPC which empowers the police to seize property would include ‘immovable property’?
This was answered by the Supreme Court in Nevada Properties Pvt. Ltd. v State of Maharashtra (2019 SCC OnLine SC 1247) whereby it was held that the aforesaid expression would not include immovable property. It was observed that the first part of sub-section (1) of Section 102 relates to property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen and since immovable property certainly cannot be stolen therefore it would not fall in this part. The second part relates to the property which may be found by a police officer under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. The expression ‘circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence’ in Section 102 does not refer to a firm opinion or an adjudication/finding by a police officer to ascertain whether or not ‘any property’ is required to be seized. The word ‘suspicion’ is a weaker and a broader expression than ‘reasonable belief’ or ‘satisfaction’. The police officer is an investigator and not an adjudicator or decision maker. In case and if we allow the police officer to ‘seize’ immovable property on a mere ‘suspicion of the commission of any offence’ it would mean and imply giving a drastic and extreme power to dispossess etc. to the police officer on a mere conjecture and surmise, that is, on suspicion, which has hitherto not been exercised. It was further observed by the Hon’ble Court that it has hardly come across any case where immovable property was seized vide an attachment order that was treated as a seizure order by police officer under Section 102. The reason is obvious. Dispute relating to title, possession etc., of the immovable property are civil disputes which have to be decided and adjudicated in Civil Courts. This, however, would not bar or prohibit the police officer from seizing document/papers of the title relating to immovable property, as it is distinct and different from seizure of immovable property.