RAVIBHAI RAMESHBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Cr.P.C ."), the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the complaint being FIR No.11217014230014 registered with Kokisha Police Station, District : Patan for the offences punishable u/s. 420, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and Sec. 40 and 42 of the Gujarat Money Lenders' Act and all consequential proceedings.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Vicky Mehta appearing for the petitioners submitted that prior to the registration of impugned FIR, a firm named I.F.L. Finance had filed an FIR against respondent No.2 herein and others on 8/6/2022 before Unjha Police Station wherein it was alleged that respondent No.2 had cheated the Institution of Rs.2.50 Lacs by not mortgaging the gold ornaments as agreed upon. Earlier, respondent No.2 had availed loan by mortgaging gold with one Finecal Company and he had repaid the said loan by availing finance from I.F.L. Finance. Thus, respondent No.2 had the history of cheating individuals / firms with the promise of availing loan by mortgaging gold ornaments. The impugned FIR has been filed against the petitioners only to counter the claim in the FIR registered against the respondent No.2 by I.F.L. Finance. It was further submitted that none of the ingredients of the offence punishable u/s. 420 IPC are made out in this case and therefore also, this is a fit case where discretion deserves to be exercised in favour of the applicants.

(3.) Heard learned advocate for the applicants and learned APP for the respondent State. It appears from the allegations made in the impugned FIR that the applicants gained the confidence of respondent No.2 and made him to part with his gold ornaments for a loan of Rs.3,00,000.00 for interest at the rate of 3% per month in September 2021. Earlier the complainant appears to have mortgaged his gold ornaments before some other financial institution but in view of the assurance given by the applicants that they would pay him more amount of loan at less rate of interest against his gold ornaments, the complainant borrowed money from his relatives and paid up the outstanding loan amount with the financial institution and thereafter, mortgaged the gold ornaments with the applicants. The complainant appears to have regularly paid the interest amount for a period of 13 months upto October 2022. Thereafter, since there was a marriage in his family, the complainant requested the applicants to return the gold ornaments. However, the applicants refused to return the gold ornaments until the outstanding loan with interest is repaid. There is nothing on record to suggest that the applicants are registered to lend money. Further, when the complainant continued to repeat his request to return the gold ornaments, the applicants informed him that they do not have any gold ornaments belonging to the complainant with them and that if he wants his gold ornaments back, then he shall have to return the outstanding loan amount with 10% interest.