1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application (APL) No. 27/2011 Gajanan Prabhakar Chiddarwar and another V/s. State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. P.S. Pusad (Rural), Tq. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal, and another ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- None appeared on behalf of Applicants Mr. D. B. Yengal, APP for respondent no.1-State Coram: A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 11th August 2011 1) It appears case of the applicants that they are facing prosecution for offence punishable under Section 32(b) and 33 of the Bombay Money Lending Act, 1945. The applicants prayed to exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, disputing that they are running illegal money lending business. The applicants prayed to quash FIR bearing no. 3061/2010, dated 21/12/2010, registered by Pusad (Rural) Police Station, under Section 32(b) and 33 of the Bombay Money Lending Act, 1945. 2) None appeared for applicants. 2 3) According to learned A.P.P., there are witnesses namely Jaisingh Namdeo Rathod, Harja Motu Rathod and Sumitrabai Waghmare, who were examined and their statements were recorded, statement of complainant was also recorded. There are witnesses to corroborate the complaint lodged in this case in respect of which investigation is in progress and, there is prima facie material to believe that there was illegal money lending business and immovable property of the borrowers was also grabbed by the money lender, who were facing proceeding for offences punishable under Section 32(b) and 33 of the Bombay Money Lending Act, 1945. 3) In view of contention on behalf of the respondent- State, the investigation (serious accusations) must be taken to its logical end. Under these circumstances the prayer to quash FIR is dismissed. 4) Application is dismissed. JUDGE Punde