Applicants misrepresented loan transactions, which did not constitute 'deposits' under the MPID Act, thus the FIR was partially quashed.

JUDGMENT :

Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.

1. Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri A.S.Mardikar for the applicants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri N.B.Jawade for non-applicant Nos.1 and 2/State, and learned counsel Shri Vedant Raut for non- applicant No.3. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for parties.

2. The present application is preferred by the applicants under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing of FIR in connection with Crime No.0783/2023 and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing Special Case No.67/2024 pending before learned District Judge-13 and Sessions Judge, Nagpur under Sections 109, 409, 413, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (the IT Act) and 3 of The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (the MPID Act).

3. As per the contentions of the applicants, applicant Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife and applicant No.3 is brother of applicant No.1. The applicant No.1 was dealing in the business of trading Grams, Dal, Tur, and other food-grains.

4. The crime is registered against the applicants on the basis of a report lodged by Ramkrishna Manikrao Nimbulkar alleging that he and his friends Vijay Dadaram Wankhede and Nilkanth are farmers. The applicant No.1 owns a Warehouse at Gumthala (Mauda), Nagpur and deals in business of paddy, pulses, and other food-grains like grams. One Roshan Pande, working as driver with co- accused V.S.Wakalpuddy, approached the complainant and other farmers and informed that the Government is implementing a Scheme granting compensation to small farmers who suffered losses and are victims of natural calamities. On the basis of the same, co-accused V.S.Wakalpuddy took the complainant and other farmers to bank. Their documents like Aadhar Cards, Photographs, and Identity Proofs were obtained on a pretext of opening of bank accounts for depositing compensation amounts. At the relevant time, co-accused V.S.Wakalpuddy introduced them with applicant No.1 who informed the complainant and other farmers that for receiving the compensation, bank accounts are to be opened in bank and their accounts are required for the same. They were also administered liquor.

5. After some days, the complainant and other farmers received Notices from Corporation Bank dated 9.4.2018 asking them to repay loan amounts and, therefore, the complainant visited Advocate Chikhale to find out why the notices were issued to them and he and other farmers came to know that the bank advanced loans in favour of the complainant and the other farmers and loan amounts are outstanding against them. Thereafter, the complainant met co-accused V.S.Wakalpuddy and the applicant No.1 and informed them about notices issued to them. They both assured them that whatever loans shown in their names are secured and the same shall be refunded within two years. As co-accused V.S.Wakalpuddy and the applicants obtained signatures of the complainant and other farmers and obtained loans in their names behind their back, they approached the police station and lodged the report on the basis of which the crime was registered.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants submitted that as far as applicant Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, they are not at all concerned with any of activities. They are only partners along with the applicant No.1. As far as applicant No.1 is concerned, even accepting the allegations as it is, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that it was “deposit” within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the MPID Act and, therefore, the offence under Section 3 of the MPI