KIRIT S/O BANSILAL PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2017-10-121
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on October 10,2017

Kirit S/O Bansilal Patil Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

T.V. Nalawade, J. - (1.) The petition is filed for following reliefs. Both the sides are heard. "(B) Quash and set aside the complaint No.3 of 2007 and complaint No.4 of 2007 registered with Nandurbar City Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1), (1-A), 32(1), 32(A) and 32(B)(B) of the Money Lending Act (Annexed at Exhibit "M" and "N" respectively). (C) Quash and set aside the enquiry report dated 25.9.2006 of the respondent No.3 annexed at Exh."G"."
(2.) Petitioner No.1 is son of petitioner No.2 and they live in Hindu joint family. They own and run Jalaram Jyot Traders shop in the area of Market Committee. Respondent No.3 is authority created under the provisions of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946 (hereafter called as "the Act") to make inquiry and take action when here is contravention of the provisions of the Act.
(3.) One Smt. Karunaben Patil, resident of Shinde, Tahsil and District Nandurbar gave complaint to respondent No.3 on 22-2-2006. One Jagannath Fakira Patil, resident of Tikhira, Tahsil Shahada, District Nandurbar gave complaint against the petitioners on 17-6- 2006. There were allegations against the petitioners that they were doing money lending business illegally. It was contended in the complaints that they had approached the petitioners in aforesaid shop of the petitioner for taking loan with the belief that petitioners were having money lending licence. It is their contention that they had taken loan from petitioners. Smt. Karunaben had taken loan of Rs.1.50 lakh and she was to pay interest at the rate of 3% per month on this loan. It is the case of Jagannath that he has taken loan of Rs. four lakh and he was to pay interest at the rate of 2% p.m. Both the complainants have contended that when they could not repay some amount and interest, by saying that security was required, their agricultural lands were got transferred by the petitioners in the names of the petitioners and their family members. It is contended that by creating false record of sale, the petitioners have grabbed the immovable property of the complainants.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.