Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Ratnabai Chitte, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No. 242 of 2022 registered at Murum Police Station, District Osmanabad for an offence under Section 39 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, and the consequent proceedings in RCC No. 192 of 2022 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Omerga. The FIR was lodged based on a complaint by respondent No.3, Liyakat Abbas Shaikh, alleging that his mother Sajanbi Abbas Shaikh had mortgaged land Gat No. 505 with late Shankar Sidhrappa Khajje through a nominal sale deed in 2010, with an agreement to pay interest at 3% per annum. It was further alleged that Shankar Khajje later executed a sale deed in favor of his daughter, the applicant, who continued the money lending business. The applicant contended that the transaction was an out-and-out sale, as confirmed by an earlier inquiry by the Assistant Registrar which closed the complaint. The court examined the definition of 'business of money lending' under Section 2(3) of the Act, which requires habitual or systematic activity for profit. Relying on precedents including Mandubai Vithoba Pavar v. State of Maharashtra (2016) 1 Bom. C.R. (Cri) 794, Balasaheb Ramrao Bade v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 5 Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 132, and Anup Niranjan Dodiya v. State of Maharashtra 2020 All M.R. (Cri) 2497, the court held that a single isolated transaction cannot constitute 'business of money lending' and that the prosecution was not maintainable. The court found no material in the charge sheet to show continuous money lending activity by the applicant. Consequently, the court allowed the application, quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings, holding that continuation would be an abuse of process of law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Abuse of Process - FIR quashed where prosecution based on single isolated transaction without evidence of continuous money lending business - Held that continuation would be abuse of process (Paras 9-12). B) Money Lending - Business of Money Lending - Section 2(3) and Section 39 Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 - Isolated Transaction - Single transaction cannot constitute 'business of money lending' requiring habitual or systematic activity - Held that prosecution not maintainable without multiple transactions (Paras 9-11). C) Evidence - Forensic Investigation - Transcript and Receipts - Sale Deed - Alleged money lending transaction evidenced by registered sale deed and telephonic transcript - Held that without forensic proof, transaction remains sale, not loan (Paras 3, 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an FIR under Section 39 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 can be sustained based on a single alleged money lending transaction without evidence of continuous business activity.
Final Decision
Application allowed. FIR in Crime No. 242 of 2022 dated 23.7.2022 registered with Murum Police Station, Dist. Osmanabad for offence under Section 39 of the Maharashtra Money Lending Regulation Act, 2014 and consequential proceeding in RCC No. 192 of 2022 pending before J.M.F.C., Omerga, is quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Business of money lending requires continuous and systematic activity
- isolated transaction does not constitute business
- Section 39 Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act 2014 requires multiple transactions
- quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC for abuse of process
