The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday strongly criticised a motor vehicle inspector for the manner in which he handled a case involving allegations that a Lamborghini car owner had forged car documents to evade paying taxes..Justice M Nagaprasanna today quashed the criminal case registered on the motor vehicle inspector's complaint. It also granted the authorities liberty to take further other action if needed in accordance with the law. Notably, the Court also took a dim view of the manner in which the motor vehicle officer seized the vehicle from the owner's garage. The Court proceeded to order the vehicle's release within a week. Justice Nagaprasanna added that he is ordering a departmental inquiry against the motor vehicle inspector for acting blatantly contrary to the law. "You (motor vehicle inspector) could not have done it sir. You had no mandate to enter somebody’s house and take away the vehicle, that’s all. You may be best officer, but the best officer also has to act within the corners of the law. There is no answer from the SPP on who gave you that power. Such things should not be repeated. Acting contrary to law cannot be countenanced," the judge remarked..The counsel representing the motor vehicle authorities urged the Court to show some leniency and let the official off with a warning, assuring that such conduct will not be repeated. "It's not as if the petitioner (car owner) is clean handed," they added. "That is a different matter, I am not dubbing him as a paragon of virtue," the judge replied. He quipped further that under the guise of a "how's the josh" approach, government officers cannot act contrary to the law. The judge added,"I'm not concerned about vehicle, whether it's a Maruti car or whatever it is. You have no right to enter into somebody's house, take away the vehicle, you yourself being the complainant!""He in fact seized it and then filed a complaint," a lawyer told the Court.However, the response did not impress the Bench."Totally contrary to law - you seize the vehicle, then go register a complaint - what is all this? You treat the office as a personal fiefdom," Justice Nagaprasanna remarked. When a request was made again for the Court to show some leniency to the motor vehicle inspector, the judge added,"We'll see. Anyway, release the vehicle.".The Court was dealing with a plea filed by Hi Care - represented by its proprietor J Ramakrishnaiah - which owns the luxury Lamborghini car under scrutiny. The petitioner urged the Court to quash the fraud and forgery case against it, maintaining that the allegations were false. During earlier hearings, the petitioner's counsel had argued that the Lamborghini Huracane Evo car was purchased in 2025 from Hoysala Automotives on payment of ₹3 crores. ₹1 core was paid as GST to the ₹60 lakhs was paid as road tax, the Court was told further.The petitioner's counsel further questioned the manner in which the vehicle was seized by a senior motor vehicle inspector, leaving his client to run from pillar to post for the car's release. After considering these preliminary submissions, the Court stayed the criminal case by an order passed on February 12, and allowed the car owner to approach the concerned trial court for the release of his seized car..The Court also censured the motor vehicle inspector for going to the Lamborghini car owner’s private garage in the middle of the night and seizing the car when no one was home.In the hearing held last month, the judge questioned the tearing hurry and “heroism” portrayed by the officer, adding that he will have to "face the music" for his actions.The judge had further questioned why the Road Transport Officer (RTO) who registered the car was not been booked in any case if there was fraud involved in the car's registration..Judgment copy awaited.
