The court emphasized the cautious exercise of inherent powers to quash FIRs, stressing that a prima facie case must warrant further investigation.

ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”), the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.I – 140 of 2018 registered with Pandesara Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 384, 387, 323, 504, 506(2), 114 of IPC and sections, 40, 42, 43 of the Money Lenders Act as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

2.1 As per the contention of the complainant he is doing business of Tours and Travels. He was in heavy burden of finance and he closed his office and started to live in Dundigam and at the time of demonetization, he suffered heavy loss to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs and therefore, complainant had mortgaged his all cars to various financiers. It is alleged in the complaint that had mortgaged one force car to one Mr.Amit Thakor residence of Kosamba and borrowed Rs.2 lakh and he repaid Rs.1 lakh. It is further alleged that petitioner has threatened complaint. Hence, FIR was filed.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner in order to quash the FIR would argue that the petitioner is innocent and there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. It is submitted that allegations made in the FIR are false and fabricated. It is also submitted that applicant has not given any threatening to the complainant for payment of interest and therefore, prima facie ingredients of section 504 and 506(2) of IPC are not fulfilled. It is also submitted that other main accused have preferred quashing petition before this Hon'ble Court and same was allowed on the ground of settlement. It is also submitted that complainant has settled the matter with the main accused.

4.1 Upon such submission, learned advocate for the petitioner prays to allow this petition and quash the impugned FIR.

4. Per contra, learned APP would submit that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and therefore, it is submitted to dismiss the petition. Taking this Court through investigation report, it is submitted that applicant has played role in commission of offence and as per report of IO, at present, the vehicle Car is lying with the applicant - accused.

5. Having heard learned advocates for both the parties, at the outset, it appears that complainant was in business of tours and travels and due to financial burden he has closed down his office and further due to demonetization, he suffered heavy loss. In such circumstances, the complainant has mortgaged his cars to various financiers and borrowed money. The complainant has also borrowed money from applicant and when he did not return the amount or paid interest, the applicant has threaten complainant. Complainant has named the applicant accused in the FIR.

6. The petitioner approached this Court at initial stage of investigation for quashing of FIR. This Court vide order dated 24.09.2018 passed order of no coercive steps against the petitioner. However, this Court directed investigation of FIR to continue. Today, learned APP has placed on record report, which establish as on date also, the applicant accused is in possession of the vehicle.

7. Investigation carried out by Investigating Officer indicates petitioner who is illegally carrying business of lending money without obtaining any license forcefully taken away vehicle of the complainant towards repayment of money and continue to remain in possession till investigation