PRATAPSINH SIDUBHA JADEJA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present application, the original accused has prayed for quashing of a criminal complaint bearing C.R. NO.I-254/2001 filed before Jamkhambhalia police station by respondent no.2 herein on 14.12.2001.

(2.) Briefly stated allegations in the complaint are that the complainant through sale and inheritance acquired certain agricultural lands in village Danta. Since he required money to grow potatoes in his field, he borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from one Amrutlal Popatlal in the year 1990 by mortgaging his land bearing survey no.89 with a Well on the land. Since he could not repay the amount within the time agreed, Amrutlal Popatlal gave the mortgage deed to Shri Pratapsinh Sidubha, giving right of recovery of the money to Shri Pratapsinh Sidubha. After two years, Shri Pratapsinh Sidubha demanded a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- which according to him included 10% compound interest on the principal. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.70,000/- but could not repay the rest. Therefore, on 10.11.1993, the accused along with his accomplish visited the complainant on his agricultural land and threatened him that if he did not repay the amount, they will ruin him and his family. The complainant and his wife were extremely scared. They were thereupon taken to the office of the Sub Registrar and their signatures were obtained on Stamp papers evidencing sale of the lands of the complainant. On this basis, the complainant alleged that the accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 385, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5,9,33 and 34 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act. It is the case of the applicant advanced through his learned advocate that the complaint is barred by limitation provided under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is contended that the dispute is purely of civil nature.

(3.) Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having perused the material on record, it will appear that the complaint in question is clearly barred by limitation as provided under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is not in dispute that offence punishable under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code carries a maximum punishment of two years and fine. Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable with maximum of two years with fine. It is also not in dispute that the offences punishable under the Bombay Money Lenders Act, do not carry any sentence higher than a period of two years.