JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants have prayed that the F.I.R. lodged against them for offences under Sections 39 and 41(b) of the Maharashtra Money-Lending Regulation Act, 2014 (for short "the Act of 2014") be quashed. 3. The registration of the F.I.R. against the applicants for the above offences is challenged substantially on the following two grounds: (i) That Ku. Surekha Fupate at whose instance F.I.R. is registered against the applicants was at the relevant time Assistant Registrar of Money-Lending, Akola and the incident, which according to the non-applicants amounts to offence, took place at Akot and Ku. Surekha Fupate could not have followed the applicants at Akot and examined the legality of transactions. 4. To support the above submission reliance is placed on Section 3 of the Act of 2014. (ii) The money-lending licence for carrying out operation at Akola is in the name of applicant No.1 Lalit, and the applicant No.2 - Ramesh has no concern with the business/transactions of applicant No.1. 5. As far as the first submission is concerned, in our view, it is misdirected. Section 3(2) of the Act of 2014 only provides that Assistant Registrar shall have jurisdiction over such area of the district as the State Government may by order, specify. Learned Advocate for the applicants has not been able to point out any provision which lays down that report/complaint regarding commission of offence under Section 39 and Section 41 of the Act of 2014 can be lodged only by particular/specified officer. Going by the general principle that criminal machinery can be set in motion by any individual, the submission made on behalf of the applicants relying on Section 3 of the Act of 2014 cannot be accepted. 6. As far as the other submission is concerned, in our view, it is not possible to examine the same, at this stage. The applicant No.2 is father of applicant No.1. Whether the applicant No.2 is involved in the activities/business/transactions of applicant No.1 or not cannot be ascertained at this stage, as the investigation is still going on. 7. In the above facts, we are not inclined to exercise inherent jurisdiction and quash F.I.R. and abort the investigation at this stage. The criminal application is dismissed. Whether the applicant No.2 is involved in the activities/business/transactions of applicant No.1 or not cannot be ascertained at this stage, as the investigation is still going on. 7. In the above facts, we are not inclined to exercise inherent jurisdiction and quash F.I.R. and abort the investigation at this stage. The criminal application is dismissed. It is clarified that the applicants will be at liberty to apply for discharge, if so advised, after filing of the charge-sheet.