MANJUNATH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri.S.V.Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Narayan M. Naik, for petitioner and Sri.Sandhesh J. Chouta, SPP-II appearing for respondents. Perused the records.

(2.) A complaint came to be lodged by the 2nd respondent before 1st respondent Police alleging that petitioner has been carrying on money lending business and towards security of the loan advance, petitioner is taking original documents of the vehicles, title deed of immovable properties, blank cheques, blank promissory notes and also charging exorbitant interest ranging from 15% to 30% and threatening the borrowers of dire consequences if they do not repay the amount with interest. It was further alleged that 2nd respondent on the directions issued by Assistant Commissioner of Police, had inspected the business premises of the petitioner and found that credible information he had received was true and thereby petitioner had committed the offences punishable under Sections 41 and 38 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 and offences punishable under Sections 4, 5 and 39 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004. For quashing of the said proceedings, petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) It is the contention of Sri.S.V.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that allegations made in the complaint do not attract Sections 41 and 38 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 and there is no complaint lodged by any debtor about charging of exorbitant interest and there being no compliance of provisions contemplated under Section 5 of the Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004, proceedings initiated against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. He would also draw the attention of the Court to the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court by Criminal Petition No.102091/2015 disposed of on 17.12.2015 and the judgment rendered on 22.06.2017 in Criminal Petition No.101569/2016 and connected matters, contending that under similar circumstances, Co-ordinate Benches had held that seizure of the documents and the complainants who had entered the premises were not authorized persons and as such, the proceedings cannot be continued. Hence, he prays for petition being allowed.