VIJAY SHIVPRASADJI KEDIA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this Application filed under section 482 read with Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C. ), the applicant seeks to quash and set aside the common order dated 5.12.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati { in short CJM } (below Exh.11 and 12) in Summary Criminal Case No.5108/2006 whereby, after perusing the charge sheet and the case papers, the learned CJM2 refused to grant any relief sought by applicant, seeking to stop or terminate the proceedings in the criminal case. Learned CJM concluded after making reference to provisions of Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 ( hereinafter the said Act ) with reference to loan defined under section 2(9)(f), indicating that the facts are required to be examined on the basis of evidence of witnesses and without evidence they cannot be decided and, as such, proceedings cannot be stopped under section 258 of the Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned CJM, the applicant had challenged the said order by means of Criminal Revision Application No.155/2007 which also came to be dismissed by learned 4th Ad hoc Additional Sessiosn Judge, Amravati by order dated 1.10.2007.

(2.) Mr. J.B. Kasat, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant took me through the averments of the oral report which was lodged by one Shantanu Ganpatrao Chavan, in which he appears to have stated that in the year 1999 during illness of his wife, he took a loan from Shri Vijay Shivprasad Kedia, R/o Khaparde Bagicha, Amravati @ 10 per cent per annum, amounting to Rs. 5,000/ in lieu of which, he used to pay Rs. 500/ per month towards interest till the year 2004. Although a sum of Rs. 40,000/ was paid, the alleged money lender demanded an amount of Rs. 30,000/ as outstanding dues. It is further averred by first informant that MR. Kedia had also obtained a blank cheque bearing no. 470402 in which he has filled in the sum of Rs. 30,000/ and as that cheque was3 dishonoured, lodged prosecution against the first informant. MR. Kedia continued to demand a sum of Rs. 30,000/ and through his cronies assured to withdraw the case from the Court if the amount is paid. But first informant could not pay the amount.. According to the first informant, since he was in dire need of loan in the sum of Rs. 5,000/ he had a given blank cheque which was filled in by MR. Kedia in his own handwriting, writing a sum of Rs. 30,000/ . According to the first informant, a plethora of other persons also took loan on interest from MR. Kedia who used to fill in the amount on the cheque and on the ground of dishonour had prosecuted several persons. Thus, a complaint was made to Commissioner of Police on the ground that MR. Vijay Kedia is indulging in money lending transactions without having money lending license. It was this prosecution which was sought to be challenged on the ground of bar of limitation as also with prayer to stop the proceedings and both the prayers by concurrent orders came to be rejected, at the hands of the Courts below.

(3.) The ruling in Sohel Janmohammad Memon and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2006 AllMR(Cri) 2703 is distinguishable as it was in respect of an application for discharge which was rejected.