The judgment emphasizes the strict regulation and control of money-lending activities under the Bombay Money-Lenders Act, including the requirements for licensing, record-keeping, and compliance with interest rate regulations.

1. The first application is filed for relief of quashing of F.I.R. No. 10/2014 which is registered at Loha Police Station, Nanded for the offences punishable under sections 5, 32 (B) and 33 of Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and also for the offence punishable under section 420 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.' for short). The second application is filed by the applicants for permission to produce some documents. Both the sides are heard.

2. Copies of police papers were made available. The other side has filed reply affidavit to oppose the application. In the second application, the applicants have produced copies of some sale deeds executed in favour of applicants by the original complainants, debtors.

3. The crime is registered on the basis of report given by one Assistant Registrar, Officer appointed by the State Government, for implementation of provisions of the Act. The debtors had approached Police Station Loha, but the police station referred all these complainants to the aforesaid officer. In all 14 persons had given complaints and then more came forward. There are allegations against the applicants that they were doing money-lending business when they had no licence to do such business under the Act.

4. There are allegations that applicant - Vasant Pipinwar and other applicants, who are family members of Vasant, are doing the money lending business without obtaining licence and for security of the loan, they have obtained registered sale deeds in respect of agricultural lands of many farmers. There is allegation that though such documents are prepared, the lands are still in possession of debtors and they have been paying interest and many of them have returned the amount. Many farmers have grievance that they have not only paid the principal amount, but also interest as per the agreement, but the applicants are not ready to execute the re-conveyance documents in their favour and on the contrary, they are trying to take possession by using force.

5. The record shows that the aforesaid officer recorded statements of 29 such debtors. During inquiry, it transpired that the applicants were charging interest at the rate of 3% to 5% per month. It also transpired that no separate record of the amount actually received from the debtors was prepared by the applicants, but the transactions in question were actually loan transactions and the applicants got executed those documents for money lending business.

6. It is the case of original complainants that they are still in possession of their lands and the revenue record is also to that effect. As the properties are shown to be transferred in the names of all the applicants, F.I.R. is given against all of them. As per the record, agricultural land admeasuring more than 135 Acres is shown to be transferred in favour of applicants under those documents, when initially they had no agricultural land. There is one document, though on ordinary paper, shown to be executed like person like Sudam in which there is mention of interest and it was also a loan transaction. Though it was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that this Sudam did not come forward during inquiry, such documents cannot be ignored as it is used for registration of crime and the investigation is going on. Already statements of around 29 debtors are recorded by police and they have come forward to say that they have been paying interest at the rate of 5% per annum to the applicants and they are the loan transactions.

7. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that when documents of aforesaid nature are executed in favour of applicants, it is up to the Civil Court to decide as to what was the nature of transactions. He also submitted that under the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the dispute with regard to the possession is also required to be decided by the revenue authority and so, no criminal action is possible again