( 1 ) EARLIER, Mr. B. R. Gupta, learned advocate for the applicants as well as Mr. Y. N. Ravani, learned advocate for respondent No. 2 were fully heard by this Court, however, a request was made to adjourn the matter for some time in order to find out whether the dispute can be settled between the parties, these matters were therefore adjourned.

( 2 ) TODAY, when the matter is called out, it is stated before the Court that settlement is not possible and the Court may proceed with the judgement. Since the point involved in all these matters is common, with the consent of the parties, all these matters are taken together for final disposal.

( 3 ) APPLICANT No. 1 is a financial company, which is incorporated under the Companies act. So far as Criminal Misc. Application No. 255/2001 is concerned, it arises out of a complaint filed by respondent No. 2-Smt. Shardaben Bhogilal Mehta, which is registered as Criminal Case No. 1381/2000 against applicant No. 1 " company as well as against its directors and branch manager respectively. Aforesaid complaint is filed by respondent No. 2 herein on the allegations that by mortgaging trucks and others vehicles, which are purchased for business purpose, complainant had taken a loan from the accused company and that the accused company is doing business of money lending, by disbursing loan for business purposes. It is alleged in the complaint that against loan of Rs. 4,70,000/- the accused has recovered rs. 7,30,895/- by charging penal interest which according to the complainant is on higher side and according to the complainant the accused-company had taken rs. 2,84,160/- in excess. It further alleged in the complaint that in spite of aforesaid position, the accused have filed civil suit in the civil Court for recovering the amount. It is alleged in the complaint that accused have violated provisions of section 5 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946. It is also the say of the complainant that the accused is doing business of money lending without obtaining license from the competent authority as required under the Bombay Money Lenders act, 1946. It is alleged in the complaint that rate of interest charged at 36% is very excessive and it is in violation of provisions of Money Lenders Act. It is also alleged in the complaint that forged signature was taken by the accused on certain papers and the documents are forged. It is alleged that in hire purchase agreement also forgery is committed and such hire purchase agreement is contrary to law. It is alleged that accused have no right to get such document executed as accused Nos. 1 to 3 cannot be said to be the owners of trucks in question. Accordingly, the complaint is filed under the provisions of Bombay Money Lenders Act for violation of provisions of the Act.

( 4 ) LEARNED Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, issued process asking the applicants to appear before the Court. The process is issued under the provisions of sections 5, 25, 26, 32 (1), 32 (2), 33 (1) and 34 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance by issuing process, the applicants have approached this Court by filing these applications under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code stating that the applicant is a financial institution and the provisions of Bombay Money Lenders Act are not applicable to them and, it is prayed that process issued by learned magistrate may be quashed.

( 5 ) SO far as Criminal Misc. Application No. 256/2001 is concerned, complaint in question being Criminal Case No. 1382/2000 is filed by respondent No. 2 " Suresh bhogilal Mehta. Said complaint is field in connection with finance obtained by respondent No. 2 for the purpose of purchasing motor trucks for transport business. Similar type of allegations as made in the aforesaid complaint are made in the present complaint. Learned Magistrate has also issued process under Section 5, 25, 26, 32, 32 (1), 32 (2), 33 (1) and 34 of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document