Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 26180
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
SANDEEP N. BHATT, J
AAKASH DINESHBHAI WAGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 13630 of 2024
MR MEHUL A SURATI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant; MR MANAN MEHTA, APP for Respondent No. 1 – State; MR AS TIMBALIYA, ADVOCATE for Respondent No.2 – Ori. Complainant
The absence of a money lending license under the Gujarat Money Lenders Act and the nature of allegations necessitate investigation, affirming the validity of the FIR.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Quashing of FIR - The applicant seeks to quash an FIR for offences under IPC and Gujarat Money Lenders Act, claiming no case is made out against him and alleging mala fide intent behind the complaint. (Paras 1, 3.1, 3.2)
(B) Money Lending - Licensing Requirement - The applicant admitted to not holding a license under the Gujarat Money Lenders Act, which is essential for legal money lending activities. (Paras 6.3)
(C) Investigation - Prima Facie Case - The court found that the FIR indicates a prima facie case requiring investigation, dismissing the application to quash the FIR. (Paras 6.4, 9)
Facts of the case:
The applicant is accused of demanding excessive interest on loans made to the complainant's husband, with substantial repayments already made. The FIR alleges extortion and illegal money lending practices.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the FIR is credible and requires thorough investigation, rejecting the applicant's claims of abuse of process.
Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the FIR disclosed a prima facie case and the legality of the applicant's money lending activities without a license.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of a money lending license and the nature of the allegations warranted further investigation, thus dismissing the application to quash the FIR.
Result: Application dismissed.
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, `BNSS’), the applicant – sole accused prays for quashing the FIR impugned being C.R.No.11191008240608 of 2024 registered with the Chandkheda Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Sections 386, 294(b) and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 33, 42(d) of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act.
2. Heard learned advocates. Learned advocate Mr. A.S. Timbaliya for the complainant is permitted to file his vakalatnama within three working days from today. The Registry to accept the same.
3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Mehul A. Surati for the applicant has contended that looking to the tenor of the complaint, no case is made out against the applicant. He has also contended that it is an admitted position that the applicant has landed money to the husband of the complainant for some business purpose due to having good relation. The amount of interest is also required to be paid by the husband of the complainant. He has submitted that on the date of incident, the applicant was not available at Tapovan Circle, Ahmedabad, as, in fact, the applicant was at Bhuj, where the husband of the complainant is detained. He has also submitted that this is nothing but to pressurise the present applicant with a view to avoid the payment of the outstanding dues and therefore, the impugned complaint is filed, which amounts to abuse of process of law.
3.2 He has further submitted that on the bare reading of the complaint, no offence is made out under Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code, as alleged. The applicant has fairly admitted that the applicant does not hold any license to lend money to the people.
3.3 He has also submitted that the applicant has filed a complaint before the Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad City on 07.03.2024 pursuant to the issue regard one car – MG Hector and he has received the car with the aid of the police authority.
3.4 He has submitted that the complaint itself is filed with mala fide intention. He has submitted that under the circumstances, this application may be allowed.
4. Learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta for the State has submitted that the impugned complaint itself shows that prima facie offence is made out which requires investigation. He has submitted that the investigation is in process. He has also submitted that the learned trial Court has rejected an application for anticipatory bail preferred by the applicant. He has further submitted that serious charges are levelled against the applicant in the impugned complaint, which attracts the provisions of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act. He has submitted that admittedly, the applicant does not have any license to lend money. He has submitted that the investigation may be carried on. He has submitted that this application may be dismissed at this stage.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Timbaliya for the original complainant has drawn the attention of this Court towards the material available on record, more particularly Page Nos.3 and 4 of the impugned complaint whereby it transpires that the amount of Rs.21,93,000/- has been repaid by way of 25 transactions in lieu of car transaction and thereafter, an amount of Rs.24,23,000/- has been repaid by way of 16 transactions in lieu of money transaction, which clearly indicates that substantial payment has been made to the applicant by the husband of the complainant. Thereafter also, the applicant is demanding more money with exorbitant rate of interest i.e. about 7% per month, over and above 2% interest per month. He has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the conversation through whatsapp chat, which is also relied upon by the applicant. He has submitted that since the offence is committed under the provisions of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act, no relief can be granted to the applicant at this stage. The impugned complaint is registered on
