Karnataka High Court stays probe against owner of Lamborghini seized for cheating and forgery

The High Court of Karnataka has stayed further investigation against the owner of a Lamborghini Huracan, which was seized and towed away from the house garage by a senior motor vehicle inspector. 

While the petitioner, H1 Car Care in Sahakarnagar, claimed to have paid Rs 1 crore in GST and Rs 60 lakh in road tax, the Transport Department alleged the offences of cheating and forgery with respect to the registration. 

The petitioner, an automobile body part dealer, submitted that the car was purchased from Hoysala Automotives Pvt Ltd on September 1, 2025, at Rs 3,00,68,729. 

According to the petitioner, the 2021-made car was first sold to Harsha Infra Cons Pvt Ltd in 2022 with temporary certificate of registration. It had sought permission to obtain permanent registration in Telangana. The car was returned to Hoysala Automotives without registering in Telangana and being used as a Demo Vehicle until the petitioner purchased it in 2025. 

The petitioner claimed to have followed the due registration process with the Indiranagar RTO by paying all taxes. 

However, on February 7, 2026, Ranjith N, senior motor vehicle inspector, along with other officers, entered the house garage of the petitioner and seized the vehicle without any prior notice, the petitioner said. 

The petitioner came to know that the vehicle was handed over to the Yelahanka New Town police station, and that an FIR has been registered for offences under BNS sections 318(4) and 336(3) for cheating and forgery. 

During the hearing, the state public prosecutor contended that the owners of the vehicle had forged and caused loss to the state in the registration process. On the instructions of the motor vehicle inspector, the SPP submitted that once the crime is registered, a senior motor vehicle inspector is empowered to seize the vehicle. 

At this stage, the court asked as to why RTO officers are not accused in the case and only the car owner is made an accused. To this, the SPP submitted that every person involved in the transaction will be brought to books. 

“Insofar as the contention that the Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector, the complainant, had power to himself go, seize and tow the vehicle and place it at various police stations, is concerned, this court could await a reply from the State Public Prosecutor,” Justice Nagaprasanna said, while posting the matter to be re-listed on February 18.