Karnataka High Court Slams Unlawful Seizure Of Lamborghini, Directs Action Against RTO Officer

While quashing an FIR in a high-profile fraud and forgery proceeding that revolves around the registration of a Lamborghini Evo with the RTO, the Karnataka High Court has taken strong exception to the conduct of a Senior Motor Vehicles Inspector who seized the said vehicle unlawfully.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while ordering the release of the vehicle in custody within a week, has asked the state to initiate a departmental enquiry against the erring motor vehicles inspector.

The court has quashed the FIR qua the petitioner while also taking note of some other aspects regarding the effacement of the car in RTO office. The plea was filed by Hi Car Care, represented by its Proprietor J. Ramakrishnaiah, who owns the luxury car.

On another note, the State Public Prosecutor previously informed the court that the vehicle was 'effaced' and 'new details were keyed in' to the vehicle by the officers at the RTO, Bangalore East. Despite reason to believe so, none of these officers suspected of data manipulation were made an accused in the FIR along with the petitioner, the court had noted before reserving its judgment.

Today, while pronouncing the order, the court also took note of the undertaking given by the Public Prosecutor that the officers of the Regional Transport Office involved in the car data deletion and keying in of additional information would be brought to the books. In the order, the court has asked the prosecutor to prepare a report about the same within 2 months before the court

[Judgment Copy Awaited For Further Details]

Oral Remarks In Court

After pronouncing the order, when the counsel for the inspector sought the court's indulgence, Justice M. Nagaprasanna disapproved of the conduct of the officer vocally.

“…You had no mandate to enter someone's house and take away the vehicle. You may be the best officer. But the best officer should also act in accordance with the law. There is no answer from SPP too about who gave you that power…This should not be repeated”, the court orally remarked.

Though the inspector pleaded with the court to let him off with a warning this time, the court was not inclined to entertain the request. The court opined that the officers cannot just imitate 'How is the Josh' and act contrary to the law.

The Senior Motor Vehicles Inspector, who was present before the court in the last instance as well, failed to place on record how he derived the power to seize the vehicle, even before a crime for which he is the complainant was registered.

After pronouncing the order, when the state submitted that the petitioner is not entirely clean-handed, the court added that the case of the petitioner was different.

“That's different. I am not dubbing him(petitioner) as the paragon of virtue…”, the court added.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna paid no heed to the repeated requests of the inspector to show him mercy. The court pointed out that the inspector had seized the vehicle from the garage long before the registration of the crime against the petitioner. Hearing this, the state also acceded that the inspector, who was also the complainant, had made an error. Citing the same, the court mandated that the inspector would undergo the rigours of departmental enquiry.

“I don't care about the vehicle, be it a Maruti or any other vehicle... you yourself, being the complainant, barged into someone's house and seized the vehicle unlawfully”, the court orally remarked.

Though the motor vehicles inspector submitted that he was due for a promotion and the court's order for departmental enquiry would adversely affect him, the court clarified that it was necessary for him 'to feel the pinch'.

Context

On the previous date of hearing in February, the Court had stayed further investigation against the Lamborghini owner accused of fraud and forgery, while sharply criticising the Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector for conducting an illegal seizure without notice and displaying 'unnecessary hurry'.

According to the petitioner, immediately after registering the crime, the motor vehicles inspector entered the petitioner's house and garage in the absence of any notice, seized the vehicle, and towed it away without authorization.

The petitioner was subsequently forced to visit multiple police stations to locate the vehicle, only to be given conflicting information about its jurisdiction. Applications filed under Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS for the vehicle's release was met with state authorities initially claiming ignorance of the vehicle's location.

The petitioner was the owner of the aforesaid motor vehicle-Lamborghini Huracane car. He purchased the said car from the authorised dealer, 'Hoysala Automotives' on 01-09-2025 by paying a hefty amount. The amount included ₹1 crore GST to the coffers of the State and ₹60 lakhs in road tax. The vehicle was later sent for registration by the dealer. The Regional Transport Office of Indiranagar, Bangalore East, registered the said vehicle. The registration date is 19-09-2025, but the manufacturing date was seen as in 2021.

Pursuant to the same, the current case stems from a zero FIR registered on February 7, 2026, by a Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector (2^nd Respondent) under Sections 318(4), 336(3), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), pertaining to cheating, fabrication of documents, and forgery.

Before the High Court, the state contended that the petitioner had forged the invoices for registration and caused a loss to the state exchequer.

However, the petitioner contended that he had paid Rs 3,00,68,729/- as shown in the invoice of the authorised dealer, and 1 crore has been paid as GST, and ₹ 60 lakhs was rendered to the State as road tax.

Case Title: Hi Car Care v. State of Karnataka & Ors

Case No: Crl P.2309/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar)