RAMESH BABULAL CHAUDHARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition with a prayer to quash and set aside the F.I.R. No. 3/2013, registered at Nandurbar City Police Station on 05.01.2013 and has also prayed for setting aside the charge sheet filed on the basis of the said F.I.R. in Regular Criminal Case No.23/2014 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nandurbar for the offences punishable under Sections 32B and 33 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1946 Act" for short) and Sections 420 read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Though the petitioner was initially praying for setting aside the entire charge sheet, during the course of hearing of the present petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is restricting his petition only to the extent of prayer clause (D), which reads thus :

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 05.01.2013, one Manoj Madhukar Chaudhari, the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nandurbar filed the F.I.R. at Nandurbar City Police Station against the petitioner only for the offences under Section 32B (b) and (c) and 33 of the 1946 Act. The learned counsel further submitted that the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nandurbar was directed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nandurbar to lodge such F.I.R. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned J.M.F.C. was directed by the learned Principal District Judge, Nandurbar to record the statements of the persons who had allegedly made a complaint to him against the petitioner alleging illegal money lending business being carried out by the petitioner and to conduct a discrete enquiry and to take all further necessary steps. The learned counsel submitted that accordingly when the learned J.M.F.C., recorded the statements of the persons who were alleged to have made the complaint to the learned Principal District Judge, none of them spoke against the petitioner, on the contrary, they plead complete ignorance about any such complaint preferred to the learned Principal District Judge. The learned counsel further submitted that there were some other persons whose names were not mentioned in the directions so given by the learned Principal District Judge and who have never made such complaint to the Principal District Judge, volunteered before the J.M.F.C., for giving their statements and they had made certain allegations against the petitioner accusing him of illegally carrying the business of money lending and thereby exploiting the persons like them. The learned counsel further submitted that after recording the statements of all such persons, even the learned J.M.F.C., give any direction for registering offence against the petitioner under Section 420 read with 511 of Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel reiterated that neither the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies found it necessary to lodge an F.I.R. for the offence under Sections 420 read with 511 of Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel further submitted that it was the investigating officer who at his own added Sections 420 and 511 of Indian Penal Code though there was no such material on record, with the only intention that he could then arrest the petitioner and also seek his police custody. The learned counsel submitted that the investigating officer succeeded in his said intention and he also could obtain police custody of the petitioner for few days. The learned counsel taking us through the entire material filed along with the charge sheet submitted that no evidence has come on record so as to charge sheet the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 420 read with 511 of Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel submitted that even if all the allegations allegedly made out by the persons whose statements have been recorded by the investigating officer are taken as it is and accepted to be gospel truth, even then no offence can be said to have been made against the petitioner under Section 420 read with 511 of Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel further submitted that all allegations allegedly made against the petitioner are only in respect of violation of the provisions of the 1946 Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The learned Counsel submitted that the 1946 Act is a self contained code and since it is a special statute, the general provisions i.e. containing in the Indian Penal Code cannot be made applicable. To substantiate the point so raised the learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of State v. Parshottam Kanaiyalal and another (AIR 1060 Bom. 244). The learned Counsel read out paragraph no.9 of the said judgment to buttress his arguments.