JUDGMENT : Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, the matter is taken up for hearing. 2. The applicants have filed this application for quashing of F.I.R. No. 3038/2006 filed with Allaipur police station, district Wardha lodged by respondent No. 2. 3. I have, with the assistance of learned Advocates from both sides, perused the charge sheet. Respondent No. 2 had filed F. I. R. with Allaipur police station alleging therein that in the year 1980 Mahadeo-applicant No.1 had purchased land bearing survey No. 13 admeasuring 6.00 acres from respondent No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. According to respondent No. 2 the said transaction was in the nature of the loan. It is also the case of respondent No. 2, as mentioned in the FIR, that on 21/10/1986 respondent No. 2 offered to repay Rs. 20,000/to applicant No. 1 and demanded reconveyance of loan. According to respondent No.2, the applicant stated to him that as and when the sale of the land would be opened, he would convey the land in his favour. In fact, he did not convey the said land. It is also the case of respondent No. 2 that some time in the year 1986 agreement to sell in respect of 2.00 acres out of land survey No. 13 was entered into between respondent No. 2 and the applicants. According to respondent No.2, the applicants continued to be in possession of the land and are enjoying the said land. This F. I. R. was read by the concerned police and they registered the offence against the applicants under Section 32B read with Section 33 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 (for short, the said Act). Statement of certain other persons such as Balgir, Rambhau were recorded as a part of investigation and chargesheet has been filed. The applicants have approached this Court for quashing of the chargesheet and the First Information Report. 4. On hearing learned Advocates on both sides, it is clear that offence under Section 32B of the said Act is non cognizable offence and this is how the police will have no authority to investigate about said offence and to that extent the F.I.R. will have to be quashed. 4. On hearing learned Advocates on both sides, it is clear that offence under Section 32B of the said Act is non cognizable offence and this is how the police will have no authority to investigate about said offence and to that extent the F.I.R. will have to be quashed. So far as the case under Section 33 of the said Act, I have ascertained on the basis of the record as to whether prima facie case for a charge under Section 33 of the said Act is made out and my answer is in the negative. 5. Provisions of Section 33 of the said Act lay down that if a person molests or abets molestation of a debtor for recovery of the debt due by him to a creditor amounts to an offence of molestation. What constitute molestation is set out in the explanation. 6. Applying the provisions of Section 33 of the said Act, to the facts of this case, it is difficult to accept that the facts stated in the present case would fall within the parameters of Section 33 of the said Act. A copy of the sale deed by which land was sold in favour of applicant No. 1 in the year 1980 is annexed to the petition. The said sale deed does not provide for reconveyance, and therefore, there is no question of applicant’s executing reconveyance in favour of respondent No. 2 though respondent No. 2 claimed to have demanded the reconveyance. So far as the second transaction of year 1986 is concerned, the said transaction is in the nature of agreement to sell in favour of the applicants. 7. Taking the case of respondent No. 2 as it is, there are no allegations set out against the applicants so as to say that the applicants have committed any overt act which would fall within the clauses set out in explanation to Section 33 of the said Act. If at all the case of respondent No. 2 was that respondent No. 2 was entitled for reconveyance, respondent No. 2 could have instituted the suit for the said prayer. There is nothing stated in the chargesheet that the applicants physically apprehended respondent No. 2 from approaching the Court. 8. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the chargesheet does not disclose an offence punishable under Section 33 of the said Act. There is nothing stated in the chargesheet that the applicants physically apprehended respondent No. 2 from approaching the Court. 8. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the chargesheet does not disclose an offence punishable under Section 33 of the said Act. The lodgment of the FIR in the year 2006 in regard to the transaction of the year 1980, 1986 is beyond the period of limitation on the basis of joint reading of Section 33 of the said Act and Sections 468 onwards of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was necessary for respondent No. 2 to lodge the complaint within a period of one year from the date of commission of offence, taking it for a moment that the offence is committed. 9. The F. I. R. having been filed in the year 2006, it is patently beyond the period of limitation. Learned Advocate for respondent No. 2 could not satisfy this Court as to how the said FIR was filed within a period of limitation. It is on this ground also the F. I. R. needs to be quashed. 10. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the applicants have made out the case for quashing of the F. I. R. as well as criminal case being summary criminal case No. 2591 of 2006 which is presently pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class Court No.2, Hinganghat, District Wardha. In view of this, following order is passed:- i) First Information Report bearing No. 3038/2006 filed with Allaipur Police Station, District Wardha is quashed and set aside. ii) Summary Criminal Case No. 2591 of 2006 pending against the applicants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 2, Hinganghat, District Wardha on the basis of F. I. R. No. 3038/2006 is quashed and set aside. iii) Rule is made absolute accordingly.