Mangesh S. Patil, J.

Heard.

2. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned APP waives service for respondent State. With the consent of both the sides the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

3. In this proceeding under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants who are the accused in Crime No. 279/2018 registered with Police Station Dindrud District Beed for the offence punishable under section 39 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 ( hereinafter, "the Act"), are seeking its quashment.

4. Facts leading to the filing of this application may be summarized as under:

One Dattatraya Ramkisan More and his wife Vithabai More resident of Kari Tq. Dharur District Beed lodged a complaint with District Registrar Co-Operative Societies Beed inter alia alleging that the applicants are indulging in illegal money lending and were threatening them. One Shri. S.D. Neharkar was appointed to carry out the enquiry. He submitted report dated 24.05.2017 holding that there was no money lending. Shri. Dattatraya Ramkisan More then challenged that order before the District Magistrate who directed the matter to be enquired afresh by constituting a three member committee. The committee conducted a fresh enquiry and submitted a report to the District Registrar of Co-Operative Societies confirming that there was a money lending transaction. The applicants had indulged into and had committed an offence punishable under section 39 of the Act. Pursuant to such report and the directions of the superior, informant Shivaji Bapurao Ghule who is the Assistant Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Dharur lodged the F.I.R. and the crime was registered. Being aggrieved the applicants are before this Court.

5. The learned advocate for the applicants vehemently submits that applicant No. 1 had purchased a land admeasuring 80 Are for consideration of Rs. 1,80,000/- under a registered sale-deed dated 03.11.2010 from Dattatraya and his wife. Since the applicant No. 1 was in need of money he sold a portion admeasuring 40 Are out of that land to the applicant No. 3 under a registered sale-deed dated 02.05.2011 for a consideration of Rs. 1 lakh. Since it was an out and out sale conveying title to the land, the applicant No. 1 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 72/2017 against Dattatraya More and his wife and family members seeking perpetual injunction restraining them from obstructing his possession over the remaining 40 Are portion. The learned Civil Judge has also granted interim injunction in his favour. Similarly even the applicant No. 3 has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 71/2017 against Dattatraya More and his wife and family members in respect of the portion purchased by him from the applicant No. 1 and even he has been granted interim injunction. Thus according to the learned advocate there is no element of any money lending much less carrying a business of money lending which is prohibited under the Act.

6. The learned advocate for the applicants would then submit that since the transaction has taken place prior to coming into the force of the Act in the year 2014, as held in the similar set of facts by Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Application No. 3884/2017 by the order dated 09.02.2018 the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

7. The learned advocate for the applicants would then submit that in fact the offence has been registered only on the basis of preliminary verification under section 16 and inspection under section 17 of the Act and the enquiry is yet to be completed. Therefore the F.I.R. has been lodged prematurely. The enquiry under section 18 of the Act is still in progress and the informant should have waited till any final decision was taken.

8. The learned advocate then submitted that as far as the applicant No. 2 is concerned there are absolutely no allegations about he having indulged in illegal money lending business but he is being implicated merely because he happens to be the husband of