IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.Surender, J.
Vodapally Ranganath - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Telangana through SHO, P.S.Matwada, Warangal, Rep. by Public Prosecutor and another - Respondents
Criminal Petition No.2251 Of 2019
Decided On : 04-11-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 384 –Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 2(c) - Telangana Money Lenders Act, 1349 - Sections 3(5)(b), 3(5)(c) – Offence of extortion - Cognizable offence -Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see Judgments – Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offence under Telangana Money Lenders Act as the Magistrate has no jurisdiction. According to
Section 3(5)(b), it is for the Collector to award punishment under said clause and appeal against such order shall lie to Sessions Judge. (Para 4).
Finding of the Court: Petitioner would submit that there are pending civil disputes in between parties and since money transactions are subject matter of civil court, there cannot be any criminal prosecution - Learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance under section 384 IPC - learned Magistrate cannot take cognizance of offence under Telangana Money Lenders Act as Magistrate has no jurisdiction - According to Section 3(5)(b), it is for Collector to award punishment under said clause and appeal against such order shall lie to Sessions Judge - Trial Court is directed to proceed with trial in accordance with procedure.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER:
1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused in CC No.26 of 2017 on the file of VI Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal.
2. The police filed charge sheet against the petitioner on the allegation that he had lent the amount to L.W.1 by mortgaging the defacto complainant’s 4 ½ acres of land at Rampur village. Having received Rs.15.00 lakhs from him, the accused paid Rs.8.00 lakhs, Rs.2.00 lakhs and again paid Rs.10.00 lakhs totaling an amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs. The accused asked to provide Rs.1.00 lakh for releasing gold, which was pledged. L.W.1 sent four tulas of gold chain for the said demand. Again, the defacto complainant paid Rs.3.00 lakhs and requested to release his mortgaged items, for which the accused quarreled that an amount of Rs.23.00 lakhs received was towards interest and the defacto complainant should pay an amount of Rs.55,29,000/- in all. Aggrieved by the same a complaint was filed.
3. On the basis of the said complaint, police filed charge sheet after investigation for the offence under Section 384 of IPC and Sections 3(5)(b) of the Telangana Money Lenders Act, 1349 Fasli.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are pending civil disputes in between the parties and since the money transactions are subject matter of civil court, there cannot be any criminal prosecution. The Learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance under section 384 IPC. The learned Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offence under Telangana Money Lenders Act as the Magistrate has no jurisdiction. According to Section 3(5)(b), it is for the Collector to award punishment under the said clause and appeal against such order shall lie to the Sessions Judge.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that police have conducted investigation and the defence of the petitioners can be agitated before the concerned trial Court. Clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section 5 of Section 3 of the Act reads as follows:
(c) An offence under this sub-section shall be cognizable and bailable.
Section 2(c) of Cr.P.C reads as follows:
“(c) " cognizable offence" means an offence for which, and" cognizable case" means a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant;”
6. As per Section 3(5)(c) of the Act, an offence under section 3(5)(b) is cognizable and bailable offence. For the said reason, contravention of Section 3(5)(a), which is made punishable under Section 3(5)(b) of the Act can be investigated by police. After any police investigation, the police have to file a final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Further, according to Section 3(5)(c) of the Act the offence is bailable offence, it is the police who can only effect arrest for criminal offence and in the event of such arrest, it is for the concerned Police Officer to produce the arrested accused before the concerned Magistrate within 24 hours in accordance with Code of Criminal Procedure.
In addition to the powers of investigation by the police and trial by the competent Court, the legislature thought it fit to empower the Collector to award punishment under Section 3(5)(b) of the Act. The said empowerment does not oust the jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate to try the offence or the police to investigate the offence.
7. For the aforementioned reasons, the Criminal Petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with the procedure.
8. As a
As per Section 3(5)(c) of Act, an offence under section 3(5)(b) is cognizable and bailable offence.
The court clarified the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and the police in relation to the offence under the Telangana Money Lenders Act, affirming their respective authorities.
A Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. must exercise judicial discretion by clearly recording reasons for either initiating an investigation, rejecting the complaint, or ordering a preliminary enq....
Criminal proceedings stemming from civil disputes must adhere to procedural law, and findings of civil courts regarding contract enforceability prevail in subsequent criminal cases.
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.