SANDIP UTTAM SHINDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants seek to quash and set aside criminal proceeding in S.C.C. No.198/2022 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamkhed, which is arising out of Crime No.77/2022 registered with Jamkhed Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar for offences punishable under Sec. 39 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 (for short 'Act of 2014') and Ss. 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The respondent no.2 herein lodged report dtd. 4/2/2022 with Police Station Jamkhed alleging that he runs sugarcane juice business at Bus Stand. In the year 2018, he was in need of money for establishment of hotel business. He had obtained loan of Rs.1,00,000.00 at the interest rate of 10% per month from applicant no.1-Sandip Uttamrao Shinde. By way of security of loan a cheque of Rs.1,00,000.00 was drawn on account of son of informant in the name of applicant no.1. On 1/1/2019 total amount of Rs.1,50,000.00 was deposited with Mrs. Arti Sandip Shinde i.e. applicant no.2 towards repayment of loan alongwith interest. Although entire amount of loan was repaid, applicant no.1 raised dispute and pressurized informant to transfer his plot admeasuring 2887 sq. ft. Accordingly, a notarized document was executed in his favour. On the basis of aforesaid, Crime No.77/2022 dtd. 4/3/2022 came to be registered against applicants with Police Station Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar for offence punishable under Sec. 39 of the Act of 2014 as well as Ss. 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation progressed in pursuance of aforesaid crime and finally charge-sheet has been filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamkhed. It has been culminated in S.C.C No.198/2022.

(3.) Mr. S. D. Jayabhar, learned Advocate appearing for the applicants vehemently submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in aforesaid crime. The alleged advancement of amount is of the year 2018. The alleged refund of amount is on 1/1/2019. However, present FIR is lodged on 4/3/2022. There is no plausible explanation for such inordinate delay in reporting transactions. He would submit that entire case of respondent no.2 is based on false and frivolous allegations. He would submit that applicant no.1 has instituted criminal proceeding in S.C.C. No.97/2019 against son of respondent no.2 under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act towards dishonor of cheque of Rs.1,00,000.00. Consequently, process has been issued against son of respondent no.2 vide order dtd. 22/2/2019. Mr. Jayabjhar would also invite attention of this Court to the notarized agreement to sale dtd. 8/2/2021, by which respondent no.2 has agreed to sale property bearing no.3260/7262 situated in Gut No.1080 at Jamkhed for total consideration of Rs.9,50,000.00, out of which Rs.1,00,000.00 was paid by applicant no.1 towards earnest amount and Rs.8,50,000.00 was balance that was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed within a period of one year. Mr. Jayabhar would invite attention of this Court to the legal notice served upon respondent no.2 on behalf of applicant no.1, by which, respondent no.2 was called upon to execute sale deed in pursuance of agreement to sale. The said notice was duly replied by respondent no.2 admitting execution of document and transaction, further, called upon applicant no.1 to complete the transaction on or before 8/2/2022. Mr. Jayabhar would, therefore, submit that entire story in FIR in Crime No.77/2022 leading to criminal proceeding in S.C.C. No.198/2022 is false and improbable. He would, therefore, urge to quash the proceeding by invoking powers under Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.