Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 910 (BOM)

Ashok Laxman Gote v. State of Maharashtra

2007-07-06

C.L.PANGARKAR

body2007
JUDGMENT:- Rule. Heard finally with consent of the parties. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. One Janardhan Mahadeo Nagrale filed a complaint before the Police Station, Hinganghat alleging that the present applicants are carrying on business of money lending without holding any licence. Upon the report submitted by State-respondent No.2, an offence came to be registered under Section 32(B) of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946 as well as under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge-sheet has also been filed before the Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) after completion of the investigation. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the applicants also as well for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the registration of the crime by police is itself illegal. It is submitted that both offences under Section 32(B) of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act as well as an offence under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code are non-cognizable. The chart as given in Code of Criminal Procedure clearly indicates that the offence under Section 506 of I.P. Code is noncognizable. Obviously, therefore, at least offence could not have registered under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code upon a report. As far as offence under Section 32(B) of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that this offence too is noncognizable. He particularly invited my attention to Section 35-A of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946. Section 35-A of the said Act reads as follows "35-A. Notwithstanding, anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, offences punishable (a) under section 34 for contravening the provisions of section 5, and (b) under section 33, shall be cognizable." This section makes it clear as to which of the offences under the Act 'shall be cognizable. In view of the provisions contained in Section 35-A of the Act, it is clear that the offences under Section 34 and Section 33 alone are cognizable. It, therefore, follows that all other offences under the Act are noncognizable. In view of this, even an offence under Section 32-B of the Bombay Money Lenders Act can be said to be non-cognizable. Police therefore could not have taken cognizance under Section 32-B and could not have registered an offence. As a result, the petition must be allowed. The F.I.R. in Crime No.3002/2006 of Police Station, Hinganghat is quashed. In view of this, even an offence under Section 32-B of the Bombay Money Lenders Act can be said to be non-cognizable. Police therefore could not have taken cognizance under Section 32-B and could not have registered an offence. As a result, the petition must be allowed. The F.I.R. in Crime No.3002/2006 of Police Station, Hinganghat is quashed. Similarly, the Criminal Proceedings instituted in the court of the Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) on the basis of F.I.R. also stand quashed. The respondent No.2 may take appropriate action, if he so desires. Petition allowed.