1 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 269 OF 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPELLATE SIDE, CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 269 OF 2006 *** 1. Uttam s/o Manikrao Salunke age 60 years, Occup. Agri. R/o Manegaon, Tal. Vaijapur, District Aurangabad. 2. Rangnath s/o Baburao Bhingare, age 60 years, occup. agril. r/o Shiur, Taluka Vaijapur, District Aurangabad. ... APPLICANTS. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH POLICE STATION SHIUR, TQ. VAIJAPUR, DIST. AURANGABAD. 2. Prakash s/o Vitthal Chimte, age 50 years, occup. agril. r/of Post Kanadgaon, Taluka Kannad, District Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS ---- Shri C. V. Dharurkar, Advocate, holding for Shri S.B.Raje-Bhosale, Adv. for the applicants. Smt. S.D. Shelke, A.P.P., for Respondent No.1. Shri N.J.Pahune Patil, Adv.for Respondent No.2 [Absent] ---- Coram: A. H. JOSHI, & A. M. THIPSAY, JJ. Date : 17th November, 2011. JUDGMENT; (Per Joshi, J.) 01. Heard both sides. 02. This is an application for quashing of the F.I.R. in Crime No.131 of 2005, registered with Police Station, Shirur, Taluka Vaijapur, for offences punishable 2 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 269 OF 2006 u/Sec. 420 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., and Sections 5 and 35-A of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946. 3. Considering the contents of the FIR, version of the complainant appears to be very simple. He claims that:- (a) He was in need of amount of Rs. 15,000/= and, therefore, had demanded the same from applicant No.2. However, applicant No.2 told the complainant that since he had an amount of only Rs.7,000/=, he would arrange for remaining amount of Rs.8,000/= from applicant No.1. (b) Both the applicants insisted that money cannot be given as hand loan, but can be given on lending basis and for that purpose, they wanted security of land of the complainant and would take the usufruct, in lieu of interest to be paid by the complainant on the amount to be advanced to him. (c) The complainant executed sale-deed in respect of his land in favour of the applicants as security for repayment of the money lent to him by the applicants, but they have refused to re-convey the property, in spite of offer by the complainant, to refund the amount lent to him, as narrated in FIR. (d) Thus, in summary, the complainant, claims that as he was in need of money, on his request, the accused-applicants herein had lent him the amount. However, though the accused persons had 3 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 269 OF 2006 obtained the sale-deed from the complainant in respect of his land as security towards re- payment of the money lent to him, they refused to re-convey the property in his favour even though the complainant offered to refund the amount to them. 04. The challenge to the F.I.R. is summarized as follows:- (i) It is not shown that the element of cheating is shown to exist at the inception agreement or the day when the alleged incident occurred. (ii) The alleged act of money lending has occurred at least 8 years prior to the incident. (iii) The subject matter of document reflects the transaction as out and out sale, and hence, the plea of the complainant that it was a case of money-lending, is an afterthought. 5. What the applicants-accused want this court to believe, at this stage, is that the version of the complainant as contained in the FIR be treated, as a sheer lie and imagination, and that by accepting their version, court should treat the complaint as false and untrue. 6. Whether the offence under Section 420 of IPC is made out, and whether there existed an element or intention to cheat at the very inception, and also whether the contents of the complaint consist of untrue 4 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 269 OF 2006 matter which has to surface only after the investigation is completed. 7. At this stage, the applicants-accused are almost asking for quashing and implied acquittal without trial, by attempting to persuade this court to believe that the complaint is false and, therefore, that it be quashed on this sole ground. We do not find reasons whatsoever to accept this submission. 8. We, therefore, dismiss the application and discharge the rule. [A. M. THIPSAY, J.] [A. H. JOSHI, J.] Dated:17/11/2011. ans/269 5 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 269 OF 2006 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 269 OF 2006 Date of decision: 17th NOVEMBER, 2011. For approval and signature THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE A. H. JOSHI THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE A. M. THIPSAY. Whether Reporters of local papers ... Yes may be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to the Reporter or not? ... No Whether Their Lordships wish to see ... No fair copy of the judgment? Whether this case involves a substantial... No question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder? Whether it is to be circulated to the ... No Civil Judges? Whether the case involves an important ... No question of law and whether a copy of the judgment should be sent to Nagpur, Goa and Bombay offices? [G. F. ANSARI] PRIVATE SECRETARY TO THE HONOURABLE JUDGE