‘He will face the music’: Karnataka HC stays probe into Lamborghini owner; raps RTO inspector for ‘illegal’ seizure

The court also took exception to the action of Ranjith N, Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector, who entered the petitioner’s house and seized the car. The inspector is also the complainant in the case.

During the hearing, Justice Nagaprasanna observed, “If you (State) do not satisfy that the inspector has power to seize the vehicle and the action taken is not contrary to law, then we may well dismiss the petition, but order a disciplinary inquiry to be conducted against the inspector. If he has acted contrary to the law, he will face the music.”

What court said about prior inquiry and notice

Special Public Prosecutor B A Belliappa informed the court that, based on an inquiry conducted by the joint commissioner of Transport, the offence was registered, and the inspector was authorised to seize the car upon registration of the crime, as it was for the evasion of tax.

He also said the petitioner fabricated the documents and submitted them to the RTO for registration of the Lamborghini Huracan Evo, causing a loss to the state exchequer.

In its order, the court stated that it would wait for the special public prosecutor’s response on the motor vehicle inspector’s authority to seize the vehicle before issuing any further orders.

The bench also questioned the state government about whether any prior inquiry was conducted to determine the petitioner’s involvement in the offence and whether any prior notice was issued to him regarding the determination of tax arrears.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Venkatesh S Arbatti informed the court that the petitioner had purchased the vehicle from a dealer, and paid Rs 1 crore in GST and Rs 60 lakh towards road tax. The Bengaluru East RTO had registered the vehicle and rendered it a number, said Arbatti.

The bench also expressed surprise that RTO officers were not included in the case, even though they had registered the vehicle. “The learned SPP now candidly submits that the earlier details of the vehicle were effaced in the RTO office, and new details are keyed in. It is surprising that the officers of RTO are not accused in the case at hand, and only the owner of the vehicle is accused,” Justice Nagaprasanna said in the order.

“The SPP would submit that every person in this transaction would be brought to book by registering a crime against them.”

The prosecution claimed that Harsha Infra Cons Pvt Ltd had earlier purchased the vehicle and taken it to Telangana for registration in 2022. After using it for three years, the company allegedly sold it to the petitioner.

Officials said that when they scrutinised the documents submitted by the petitioner to the Kasturinagar RTO in September 2025, they found them to be forged and allegedly used to secure fraudulent registration. They also alleged that the vehicle had been undervalued to evade road tax and penalties amounting to over Rs 37 lakh that had accrued during the three-year period.