Bombay High Court
Ramdas S/O. Ganpatrao Fartade vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 February, 2020
Bench: T.V. Nalawade, M. G. Sewlikar
1 Cri. Appln. No. 3039-2018.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3039 OF 2018
Ramdas Ganpatrao Fartade,
Age : Major, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. At Pot Borphal Taluka Ausa,
District Latur. ... APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Police Inspector,
Ausa Police Station,
Taluka Ausa, Dist. Latur
2. Vilas Baburao Galphade,
Age : 46 Years, Occ. Service,
An Authorized Ofcer and Co-operative
Ofcer Class-1, Afliated to Assistant
Registrar, Co-opertive Societies, Ausa
Taluka Ausa, District Latur.
3. Dattatraya Vasant Salunke,
Age : 35 Years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Borphal Tal. Ausa, Dist. Latur ... RESPONDENTS
....
Advocate for the Applicant : Mr. D. P. Munde
A.P.P for Respondent No.1 : Mr. M.M. Nerlikar
Advocate for Respondent No.2 & 3 : Mr. M.D. Shinde
....
CORAM :T.V. NALAWADE AND
M. G. SEWLIKAR,JJ.
DATE : 04.02.2020.
JUDGMENT( PER T.V. NALWADE, J] :-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard
both the sides for fnal disposal.
::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 06:52:04 :::
2 Cri. Appln. No. 3039-2018.odt
2. The present proceeding is fled for relief of quashing of
FIR No. 36/2018 registered with Ausa Police Station, District
Latur for the ofences punishable under Sections 39, 45 and
48(c) of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act,
2014. By making amendment the relief of quashing of the
case is also claimed and the case is bearing Regular Criminal
Case No. 166 of 2018 which is presently pending in the Court
of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Ausa, District Latur.
3. The crime was registered on the basis of report given by
respondent No.2 i.e. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, Ausa. Respondent No.3 Dattatraya Salunke is
original complainant and he had given complaint to the
authority for taking action under the provision of aforesaid
special enactment. It is contention of Dattatraya that land
bearing Gat No. 604 admeasuring 25 R situated at village
Borfal Taluka Ausa was given to present applicant by way of
security in the year 2003 by his father and loan of Rs. 62,000/-
was taken. It is contended that there was agreement to re-
convey the property after making repayment of loan amount.
It is contended that, in the year 2017, his father had requested
the applicant to re-convey the land but land was not re-
conveyed and on 20.07.2017, the father of the informant died.
::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 06:52:04 :::
3 Cri. Appln. No. 3039-2018.odt
It is contended that after death of father when he again
approached the applicant, he realized that applicant had
agreed to sell the property to one Dattatraya Shrimant
Salunkhe and some document was executed. He has
contended that it was not outright sale, it was mortgage
document and the transactions was of money lending nature.
4. The papers of the investigation show that after getting
the complaint, the authority took search of residential place of
the applicant but nothing objectionable was found in his
house. It appears that original complainant then fled civil suit
also to challenge the aforesaid transaction. The First
Information Report dated 24.02.2018 is given by The Assistant
Registrar and he has mentioned two persons like present
applicant and one Dattatraya Shrimant Salunkhe as the money
lenders. Allegations is made that they had doing money
lending business without obtaining the license.
5. The submissions made and the record shows that
Dattatraya Shrimant Salunkhe has made many transactions
and some record giving inference of money lending business is
also collected from him. As against the present applicant,
there is record of only one transaction but that too is of sale.
::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 06:52:04 :::
4 Cri. Appln. No. 3039-2018.odt
The provision of aforesaid Act came into force in the year
2014 and there is no record to show that even prior to 2014
many such transactions were made by the present applicant.
Not a single transaction was made by the present applicant
after coming into force of the aforesaid Act. The
circumstances that the transactions of the year 2003 came to
be challenged after the year 2017 speaks loud about the
intention of the parties. The learned counsel for the informant
submitted that the witnesses on the said document have given
statements to the efect that it was loan transaction. He
submitted that the applicant has agreed to transfer the
property to aforesaid Dattatraya Shrimant Salunkeh shows that
he has join hands with Dattatraya and they are together doing
money lending business. In view of the provision of Section
39 of the aforesaid Act, it can be said that aforesaid
transaction made in favour of applicant which is apparently out
and out sale cannot be used to show that he was doing money
lending business even prior to 2014. There is no record to
show that after 2014 he had purchased any immovable
property and there is no record to show that he is doing
money lending business with other accused. If the property
purchased in the year 2003 by the applicant is now being sold
to other persons, from that circumstances inference is not
::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 06:52:04 :::
5 Cri. Appln. No. 3039-2018.odt
possible that he had joined hands in the year 2003 with the
money lender. Opportunity was given to the informant to
show that there is any relationship between the present
applicant and other accused. In reply the informant has tried
to show that the applicant is distantly related to other
accused. This contention is not sufcient in view of the
aforesaid circumstances. This contention is also disputed by
the applicant. Due to all these circumstances, this Court holds
that asking applicant to face the prosecution for the aforesaid
ofences will be abuse of process of law. In the result,
following order :-
ORDER
I. Application is allowed. II. Relief is granted to the applicant in terms of prayer clause B-1.
Rule made absolute in those terms. (M.G.SEWLIKAR, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) YSK/ ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 06:52:04 :::