IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Z. A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar, JJ.
SAINATH s/o DHANNALAL JAVHERI - Applicant
Vs.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and others - Non applicants.
Cri. Appln. (Apl) No. 581 of 2018
Decided On : 21-1-2021
Money Lending - Challenge to FIR under Section 482 of CrPC - Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 - Section 2(3), Section 2(7), Section 4, Section 41
Fact of the Case:
The applicant challenged the registration of the First Information Report (FIR) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which alleged that the applicant had advanced loans to persons residing outside the area of the license granted to the applicant, thereby denying farmers the benefit of a loan waiver scheme.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the provisions of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, and concluded that advancing loans to borrowers residing outside the area of the license did not attract penal consequences as contemplated by Section 41 of the Act. The court found that the allegations in the FIR did not prima facie constitute an offense under Section 41 of the Act, and therefore, quashed and set aside the FIR.
Issues: The main issue was whether advancing loans to borrowers residing outside the area of the license could attract penal consequences as per Section 41 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of the Act, emphasizing that the expression 'carries on business' should be interpreted in relation to the place of advancing the loan and not in relation to where the debtor resides. It held that the essential ingredient of the offense under Section 41 was the term 'carries on business,' which is defined as the business of advancing loans, and that the act of advancing a loan is necessary to constitute a business as contemplated by the Act.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the FIR, ruling that the continuance of the proceedings against the applicant would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
JUDGMENT :
AMIT B. BORKAR, J.
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
3. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has challenged the registration of the First Information Report No.0157/2018 dated 25-5-2018 registered with the non-applicant No.2 – Police Station, at the instance of the non-applicant No.3.
4. The First Information Report came to be registered against the applicant with the allegation that the applicant had advanced loans to the persons, who are residing outside the area of licence granted to the applicant. It is alleged that due to disbursement of loan to the persons outside area of licence, many farmers are denied the benefit of loan waiver scheme of the State Government. With the said allegations, an offence under Section 41 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 (for short “the Act of 2014”) was registered against the applicant.
5. The applicant, therefore, filed the present application challenging registration of the First Information Report. This Court on 1st August 2018 issued notice to the non-applicants for final disposal.
6. The non-applicant No.3 in pursuance of notice, filed reply and it is stated that the licence was issued to the applicant for the purpose of carrying money lending business in Amravati district. Therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the applicant to carry on the business of money lending within the area of Amravati district. It is stated that the applicant advanced loan to borrowers who were not resident of Amravati district.
7. We have carefully considered the contents of the First Information Report. After meaningful scrutiny of the First Information Report, in our view, the point involved in the present application is, whether advancing of loans to the borrowers residing outside the area of licence, can attract penal consequences as contemplated by Section 41 of the Act of 2014.
8. To address the question formulated by us and for better appreciation of the contentions urged by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, it would be advantageous to reproduce the provisions of Section 2 (3) of the Act of 2014, which defines expression, “business of money lending” and the definition of “debtor” under Section 2 (7) of the Act of 2014. The definition of “business of money lending” in the Act of 2014, reads thus:—
“Section 2 (7) “debtor” means a person to whom a loan is advanced whether in cash or kind and includes his successor in interest or surety”.
9. Section 4 of the Act of 2014, which puts an embargo on carrying on of the business of money lending except in the area for which the moneylender has been granted a licence. Section 4 of the Act of 2014 reads as under:—
10. The offence registered against the applicant is under Section 41 of the Act of 2014, which reads as under:—
Whoever,—
(a) obtains a licence in the name which is not his true name or carries on the business of money lending under the licence so obtained; or
(b) carries on the business of money lending at any place not mentioned in the licence authorizing him to carrying on such business; or
(c) enters into any agreement in the course of business of money lending without a valid licence, or under a licence obtained in the name which is not his true name, shall, on conviction, be pu
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.