HI&H COI./RT OF CftMAT-raSSARM ATMt.ASPUR Cft.M.P. N0.363 01= 2007 APPLICANTS NON-APPLICANT Vs Walraj Service Centre,.Bilaspur <& ors Vijay Kumar Ghandel. POSTFORORE>EF(ON2t^^EPTtMBER. 2007 111; ii;!tl;:! 111 li •s sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge B'ii.^^S1' la'B"'!l!i'' ffl-:':;;:?*feteaAC;M' w. HI6H GOURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BrLASPUft CR. M. P. N0.363 OF 2007 APPLICANT5 l.Walraj Service Centre, Link Road, Bilaspur. 2. Mohammad Arif, aged about 37 years. 3. Mohammad Tariq, aged abput 30 years. — 4. Smt. Khalida Afaq, aged about 55 years. Applicants No.2 <& 3 are sons of and applicant No.4 is the widow of Late Shri Afaq Mohammad. ;; Applicants no.2 to 4 are partners 'j, of Walraj Service Centre, Lihk Road, Bilaspur (C.6.) All Applicants no.2 to 4 were residents of Behind Raghuraj Singh Stadiym, Imalipara, Bus Stand rOad, Thaana Ctvil Lines, presently residrng at B-3, Sai Vihar, Vydpar Vihar Road, Djstrict- Bilaspur:' Vs NON-APPLICANT Vijay Kumar Chandel, son of Late Shri Arjun Singh Chandel.i aged about 61 yeaps, resident of Minocha Colony, Thaana Civil Lines, District Bildspur (C.&.) Prssent: M('. Kanak Tiwari, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mateen Siddique, Advocate for the appUcants. OftDER (Passed on 5 f .9.2007) Pei' Dhirendra Mishpa. J; 1. The applicants by this petition under Section 482 of Co|de of iCMminal Proceclure, 1973 (for brevity 'the Code') ha^e. -pr'dyed for quasliing of Criminal Case MQ. 1445/06 pendi^ig; ; iji ! tlie , Court of leorn'ed Adcli't'ional< Chief JudicJal •i :'m M •s.K •;i;^^':iNi^ti^ ;R!rM $ S^:^;;'!&iS^-^S: ^yf^&il ?IS?;3 SH+ J-P (1)11 uoj+sac; japun p's^iinbaj SD| 's+paij.l+jaa tf&i+DJ+SiGaJ AUD ssassod +ou pjp si) 46not|4 ,^spu3-] ,<3ubvv, b sj .t^ouiDlcl'uo? 3i|+.|.Dt|4, 4-USR!A3 a? Pl'"10'" 4-! +u!t>|diuo:) !.•'..' •••• • . . . • . . • ' . . •' • ' . . • ' a4+ J.ki sjiUaiyjsAD si|4 j.o |Dsnjsd uiojj. +044.^ psnSjD X|4.U3UOl)aA ?4.UB3j|ddD 3t|4. JOj. SJ.DOOApV JOJU3S p3UJD31 "e •poijsd p34.D| ndi.i.ssii+uiij+i'vi anbstjo 344. 4.SUID6D 4.unotUD 344 Xod lou pip s+uDoiiddD 344. 4.Dt|^. a+idsap psnssi SDM 8314.0U D 'ajo^sjaLij. •4.uaiua6uDjJD sp3a3X3 anb3i|3 j.o.l.unbtUD 4.Di|+ d.14. D ii+iMS+uDaiiddD 3^4. ^.o sJ3>|UOq si|4. Aq p3jnouoi|S!p SDM snb3i|3 pjos aL|+ 'J3A3MOH •4.uatui|SD3U3 joj. ps+ussajd 6ui3q uo psjnouoi| sq ||IM 3nbSt|3 844. 4.01)4. pSSIUIOjd OL|AI pUD 3J4.U33 SOIAJaS rDJ|D/V\ -l'6^1 +uD3i|ddD j.o sjau+JDd OS|D 3JD OI|M 'g y 2'ou 4.UD3!|ddD ^o aausssjd ui ^•o[\| 4.uD3i|ddD /q psnss! SDM 900Z"8'ZT pa+op 3nb3t|3 J344.0UB X|3+DiU!4.|n puo 5110150330 o(v>4. uo pajnouoi|S!p sjsM sanbaijs pios sijj. •4.unotUD souDApD ^.o najl ui panssi sjaM sanbsiis '^iSujpjpsoD puD ssauisnq jjaijj. jo^ sj.uDOjiddD* sqj. 04. -/000'06'fr"sa j-0 "00| D paouDApo 4.UDy!D|dlU03 3L|J. •3UIJ4. 0+ 3U114. UIOJJ. S+UDSJlddD 3t|4. 04. UDO| aauDApD 04. pasn 4.UDUiD|dtuo3 aL|j. •4.uDU!D|diuo3 344. j.o pusuj. 3so|3 ai|4. sq 04. psuaddDii oi|<vi '•t7'o|\| iuD3!|ddD J.o puDqsni) P"o £'? 2'oNS4.uo3!|ddD^o j3ii4.Dj. ''pDUiuiDt|pw bD^v 34.0-1 ^o 3iui4.sj.il 3i|4. asuissuoi+plSJ AIIIUDJ. ppi^ +UDU!D|diuo3 si|4. puo S4.UD3!|ddD 31(4. 4.DIJ+ 3J3M +UID|dtU03 Sl|+UJ SUO!4.D63||D 3t|J. •g •ps+aafsj uaaq SDij 34.0j+si 6ow |Dj3jpnfj.aj43|DUO!4.!ppvpaujDa|XqpassDd (,2£6TJ.o 1l.sv 3i14.,^4.!A3JqJO^) 2£6I '4.3V s+uauinj+sui a|qoi4.o6at\| ^o g£-[ U014.33S 'jspun sSjDij? BujiUDJJ. j.o japjo 344. , 4.5uiD6D psjjsj.ajd uojSjAaj ai|4. Aqajai|M /0/Z£l'ON 3SD3 iDuiiuu^ ui jndsD|!g 'sSpnf suoissss IDuoi+ippv p,£ p3ujD3| 3^4. Aq psssDd zoOZ'/'oe Pa4.DP japjo j.0 6u!i|SDnb joj. pis/CDjd OS|D puD jndsDiig 's+DJj.siSDW Su: .» !t«! Ulll :i ^ 1:'1 B' IBii- E!l:i l!l'i I Money Lenders Act,1934 (for brevity 'the Act of 1934'), and carrying business of money lencling without valid registrationcertificate is an offence within the meaning of Section ll(f) of the Act of 1934. Cheque in question issued by applicartt No.4 was in fact for the returnof amount advanced by the complainant in the course qf his illegal business of money lending and therefore, the reGOvery of any amount is forbidden ,by lawand as such, dishonour of cheque issued by the applicants towards illegalact of the complainant, which is q-n pffence under Section 11 (f) of the Act of 1934, cannot c;pnstitute an offence under Section 138 of the Act of*'1932. Reliance is placeon the judgments reported in the matters of Nutan Kumarand others Vs. IInd Additional Dfstrict Judge, Banda andothers , Kaloji Talusappa &anagvathi Versus Khyanpgouda and others Mannalal Khetan and others Versus Kedar Nath Khetan and others . 4. I have heard learned Senior Advocate for the applicants. 5. From perusal of the documents anhexed with this petition as also additional documents filed along with an application dated 17.9.2007 for taking additional documents on record it appears that the complainant has already been examined and cross-examined during trial. From t-he averments m thecomplaint it is evident that the complairiant has alleged that because of close rielationship with the applicants' • family, heused to helip them at the time of their need in their business ahd there isno allegation that any int|erest was payable towards the advanced sym. Even otherwise it js open to the appljcants to take suitable defence during ••— -'T 1 ASK 1994 AU.AWABAD 298 2 *t970j(3) Supreme Court Cases 862 3 ffSTT') 2 Sufuvme Court Cases42+ fM/:KS&*:K! til!l trial to establish that the Transaction between the parties is forbidden by law. 6. In the matter of Nutan Kumar & others the questibn for consideration was whether the agreement of tease between thelandlord and the fenant in contravention of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regutation of Letting, Rent-and Eviction) Act, 1972 is void and whether the said agreement is enforceable in law and the decree for ejectment of tenant can be passed in fayour of the landlord and the court held that any agreement, whlcti is forbidden by lawis void and neither party can en^orce the said agreement,as it does not giveany relationship to theparties of fheagreement; 7. In the matterof Kaloji Talusappa 6angavathizsuit filed by a money tender, whp is carrying business without licence for recoveryof amounts advancect in the courseof his business was dismissed on the ground that the Act imposes restriction from carrying said business. Similarly, in the matter of Mannalal Khetan and other3 it has been held that where a contract involves in its fulfillment the doing of an act which is prohibited by statute, it is a void contract. 8. There is no averment in the complaint that the complainant is the money lender or that he advanced the loan to the applicants on interest. On the other hand, there is an allegationthdt in lieu of theloanof Rs.4,90,000/-obtained by fhe applicants, they gave chequeof Rs.4,90,000/- to the comptainant, which was produced for encashmeht before the banker of the applicants and the same was dijshonoured with a tip that the amount of chequeexceeds arRangement. Thecomplainant issued notice to the applicants inenTioning ~;^he fact that cheques givenby them have been djshoriouned by their banker and they should pay the amount of cKeqyel to' the comp^lainant. However, 1;he notice rerpained|_yn- B1111 :p i» - ftoshan/- B replied and the applicants did not pay the amount against the cheque to the complainant. Thus;, from perusal of the allegations in the complaint prima facie ingredie'nts of offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1932 are present in the complaint and particulars of the offence framed against the applicants under- Section 138 of the Act ^ 1932andsubsequently"confirmed by the revisional court is in accordance with law dnd no case is made out for interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 9. In the result, the.petrtion beingdevoid of any substance is liable to be dismi?sed ahd it is herebydismlssed. Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge ft!