Kamal Ghorui
What started as a discounted supercar purchase soon turned into a legal battle involving allegations of forgery, tax loss and an FIR, before the Karnataka High Court stepped in and questioned the conduct of an RTO officer during the seizure of the vehicle.According to court proceedings reported by Economic Times, Bengaluru resident Rama had purchased a demo supercar on September 1, 2025. The vehicle had originally been manufactured in 2021 and was briefly registered in 2022 before being returned by its first owner. The dealer had reportedly informed Rama about the vehicle’s demo status before the sale.However, trouble began months later on February 7, 2026, when a senior Bengaluru RTO officer, along with other officials, allegedly entered Rama’s premises while he was away and seized the vehicle. The car was later taken to the Yelahanka New Town police station on Allalasandra Main Road.
When Rama returned home, he discovered that a Zero FIR and criminal case had been registered against him. The charges included cheating, forgery and fabrication of documents linked to the registration of the vehicle. The case was filed under Sections 318(4) and 336(3) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, corresponding to cheating and forgery provisions under the earlier IPC.During the hearing, the Karnataka State Public Prosecutor argued that forged invoices and manipulated registration records had caused financial loss to the state exchequer. It was also alleged that the car remained unregistered for nearly four years and that RTO database records had been altered to make the vehicle appear newly manufactured and freshly registered.Rama’s lawyer, Venkatesh S. Arbatti, argued that after the vehicle was towed away, his client was not informed where it had been taken and was forced to run between different police jurisdictions seeking answers. He later moved court seeking release of the vehicle under provisions of the BNSS.While the High Court allowed investigation into the alleged manipulation of RTO records, it strongly objected to the manner in which the vehicle was seized. The Karnataka High Court later quashed the FIR and criticised the RTO officer’s actions.Justice M. Nagaprasanna orally remarked that officials had “no mandate” to enter someone’s house and take away a vehicle without proper legal authority. The court further observed that even the State Public Prosecutor could not justify the power used for such a seizure and warned that such actions should not be repeated.
