Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, NANDESH S.DESHPANDE
Ramanrao, s/o. Musalaih Bolla – Appellant
Versus
Criminal Application (APL) No.1209 of 2024 – Respondent
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 Man
Applicants misrepresented loan transactions, which did not constitute 'deposits' under the MPID Act, thus the FIR was partially quashed.
The applicants' actions of obtaining loans in farmers' names do not constitute deposits or fall under the MPID Act, justifying their discharge from related charges.
The court established that transactions promising returns on deposits fall under the MPID Act, and the police are mandated to investigate when a cognizable offence is disclosed.
The court held that disputed facts regarding the nature of transactions and intent behind non-payment necessitate a full trial, preventing the quashing of the FIR.
IBC Section 96 moratorium does not stay MPID Act Section 8 attachments of malafide transferred investor funds, absent debtor-creditor tie and due to distinct legislative fields with no repugnancy.
The MPIDFE Act allows for the attachment of property to protect the interests of depositors, regardless of when the property was acquired. The affidavit filed by the competent authority complied with....
The court ruled that cooperative banks fall within the definition of 'Financial Establishment' under the MPID Act, thereby affirming the Act's applicability to such entities despite their regulation ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
