Case Note & Summary
The applicants, Lalit Ramesh Bhagat and another, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) seeking quashing of an FIR registered against them for offences under Sections 39 and 41(b) of the Maharashtra Money-Lending Regulation Act, 2014. The FIR was lodged by Ku. Surekha Fupate, who was at the relevant time the Assistant Registrar of Money-Lending, Akola. The applicants raised two main grounds: first, that the Assistant Registrar had no territorial jurisdiction over the place of incident (Akot) and therefore could not have followed the applicants or examined the legality of transactions; second, that the money-lending licence was in the name of applicant No.1 (Lalit) and applicant No.2 (Ramesh) had no concern with the business. The court, after hearing arguments, rejected the first ground, holding that Section 3(2) of the Act only defines the territorial jurisdiction of the Assistant Registrar and does not restrict who can lodge a complaint. The court observed that criminal proceedings can be initiated by any individual, and no provision limits the authority to file a complaint to a specified officer. Regarding the second ground, the court held that it could not be examined at the initial stage as it involved factual inquiry into whether applicant No.2 was involved in the business of applicant No.1. Consequently, the court dismissed the application, refusing to quash the FIR.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Maintainability - The applicants sought quashing of FIR under Sections 39 and 41(b) of the Maharashtra Money-Lending Regulation Act, 2014 on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the complainant and non-involvement of applicant No.2. The court held that the first ground was misdirected as Section 3(2) of the Act only defines jurisdiction of Assistant Registrar and does not restrict who can lodge a complaint; criminal machinery can be set in motion by any individual. The second ground could not be examined at this stage as it involved factual inquiry. (Paras 1-3) B) Money-Lending - Offences - Sections 39, 41(b) Maharashtra Money-Lending Regulation Act, 2014 - Complaint by Assistant Registrar - The court rejected the argument that the Assistant Registrar could not lodge a complaint for offences occurring outside her territorial jurisdiction, noting that no provision restricts the authority to file a complaint to a specified officer. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR lodged under Sections 39 and 41(b) of the Maharashtra Money-Lending Regulation Act, 2014 can be quashed on the ground that the complainant (Assistant Registrar) lacked territorial jurisdiction and that applicant No.2 had no concern with the business of applicant No.1.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the application, refusing to quash the FIR. The first ground was rejected as misdirected; the second ground could not be examined at this stage.
Law Points
- Criminal machinery can be set in motion by any individual
- Section 3 of Maharashtra Money-Lending Regulation Act
- 2014 does not restrict who can lodge complaint
- Territorial jurisdiction of Assistant Registrar does not limit power to report offences
- Quashing under Section 482 CrPC not warranted at initial stage
