[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Nilesh S/O Suryakant Supekar And Anr. vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 16 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:9717-DB
Digitally signed
by LAXMIKANT JUDGMENT (32) APL-539.20.DOCX
LAXMIKANT GOPAL
GOPAL CHANDAN
CHANDAN Date:
2026.02.25
19:03:54 +0530 lgc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.539 OF 2020
1] Nilesh s/o Suryakant Supekar ]
Age - 37, Occ - Business ]
R/o Flat no.I-202, Chavan Mala ]
Holewadi, Rajgurunagar, ]
Tq Khed Dist. - Pune ]
]
2] Prathamesh s/o Suryakant Supekar ]
Age - 35, Occ - Agri ]
R/o Ambe Ohal, Retwadi, Tq. Khed ]
Dist. - Pune ]..Applicants
Versus.
1] The State of Maharashtra ]
(Copy to be served upon GP of ]
Bombay High Court) ]
Through Police Inspector ]
Ranjangaon MIDC Police Station ]
Dist : Pune ]
]
2] Balasaheb Eknath Shelke ]
Age : 40, Occ Agri ]
R/o Waghale, Tq Shirur ]
Dist Pune ]..Respondents
______________________________________________________
Mr. Abhishek Kulkarni a/w Mr. Sagar Wakale and Adv. R. S.
Pere, for the Applicants.
Mr. Sukanta A Karmarkar, APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Aniket Nikam a/w Adv. Abhilasha Pawar and Adv. L
Suchak, for the Respondent No.2.
Mr. Ganesh Namdev Aglave, HC/1162 Ranjangaon MIDC
Police Station.
-------
1
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:28:33 :::
JUDGMENT (32) APL-539.20.DOCX
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATED : 16 FEBRUARY 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the
Applicants, Mr. Sukanta Karmarkar, learned APP for the
Respondent/State, and Mr. Aniket Nikam, learned Advocate
for Respondent No.2.
2. By the present Application filed under Section 482 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, the Applicants have sought the
following substantive relief:
"(c) The First Information Report upon the basis of
which Crime No.0077/2020 registered at Ranjangaon
MIDC Police Station, Dist. PUNE against the applicants for
the offences punishable u/s 504, 506, 34 of I.P.C. be
quashed in the interest of justice."
3. The FIR bearing No. 0077 of 2020, dated 01.03. 2020,
was registered with the Ranjangaon MIDC Police Station, Dist.
Pune, for offences punishable under Section 39 of the
Maharashtra Money Lending Act 2014 and Sections 504, 506
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 ('IPC') based on the
complaint lodged by Respondent No. 2 ('impugned FIR').
4. The allegations in the impugned FIR are that in the year
2017, Respondent No. 1 needed money. The Applicants
advanced a loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2,
repayable with interest at 4% per month. The Applicants are
JUDGMENT (32) APL-539.20.DOCX
alleged to have taken the Scorpio vehicle of Respondent No. 2
as a lien. An agreement in respect of the loan transaction was
executed on stamp paper. Subsequently, the interest rate was
increased from 4% per month to 10% per month. Respondent
No. 2 alleges having paid an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/-
towards part principal and part interest, with amounts still
due and payable. The disputes apparently arose due to the
non-payment of the amount, as well as the interest sought to
be demanded by the Applicants. Respondent No. 2 alleges that
he and his wife were abused with filthy words, a threat to life
was issued, and a demand was made to transfer the property
of Respondent No. 2 at Khed and the hotel at Mandava.
5. Mr. Abhishek Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the
Applicants, submits that the relationship between the
Respondent No.2 and the Applicants is that of brother-in-law.
To clarify, he submits that the wife of Respondent No.2 is the
sister of the Applicants. He submits that on an earlier
occasion, on 27.01.2020, the Applicants lodged an FIR against
the Respondent No.2 for offences punishable under Sections
307, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections
3(1), 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. He submits that the
impugned FIR is a counterblast to the said earlier FIR dated
27.01.2020. He submits that the impugned FIR contains a
false and concocted story. He submits that the impugned FIR
alleges a single transaction of money lending by the
Applicants, which does not make out a case that the
Applicants are in the "business of money lending", as such, no
JUDGMENT (32) APL-539.20.DOCX
case is made out under Section 39 of the Maharashtra Money
Lending Act 2014. He relies on the decision of this Court in
Mandubai Vitthoba Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra.1 He
submits that, as the transaction is between family members
and in view of the earlier FIR filed by the Applicants against
the Respondent No. 2, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Haryana & ors. Vs. Bhajanlal &
ors., particularly clause 7, would be applicable.
6. Mr. Sukanta Karmarkar, learned APP for the
Respondent/State, referring to the impugned FIR, submits
that the allegations therein disclose the ingredients of Section
39 of The Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act,
2014. He further submits that the statements in the FIR also
disclose the ingredients of the other offences charged under
the provisions of the IPC.
7. Mr. Aniket. Nikam, learned Advocate for Respondent
No.2, submits that the transaction between the Applicants and
Respondent No.2, as disclosed in the impugned FIR, clearly
constitutes an offence under Section 39 of the Maharashtra
Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014. He submits that the
transaction, being a money-lending transaction without a
licence, with the amount lent payable at an interest rate of 4%
increased to 10%, the Agreement having been executed, and
the vehicle having been taken as a mortgage, is sufficient to
disclose the commission of a cognizable offence for the
Criminal Writ Petition No. 627 of 2015 decided on 22.09.2015.
JUDGMENT (32) APL-539.20.DOCX
registration of the impugned FIR. He refers to the impugned
FIR to point out the ingredients of the other sections charged
against the Applicants. He further submits that in April 2020,
an FIR was registered against the Applicants in respect of an
offence under the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation)
Act, 2014.
8. Arguments heard. Perused the records with the
assistance of the learned Advocates.
9. The relevant portion of the impugned FIR is transcribed
herein below:
"......असे सां गन
ू बां धकामा करीतो पै से मागिगतले त्यावे ळी त्याने
मी तूमच्याकडे वाघाळे ये थील घरी ये तो असे सां गिगतले - त्यानं तर
गि नांक ०९-१०-१७ रोजी गिनले ष सूय$कांत सूपेकर व त्याचा भाउ
प्रथमे श सूय$कांत सूपेकर हे सकाळी १०-०० वा आमचे वाघाळे
ये थील घरी आले त्यानं तर आमचे घरगूती गिवशचावर चचा$ चालू होती
त्यावे ळी मी गिनले ष सूपेकर यास माझे घराचे बां धकाम पै शा अभावी
अध$वट बं पडले आहे तरी स र बां धकामा करीता मला १० ,००,०००/-
रुपये ची गरज असून तूम्ही मला पै से या असे म्हणालो ते व्हा गिनले श व
प्रथमे ष सूपेकर या ोघांनी त्याच्यात चचा$ केली व प्रथमे ष सूपेकर हे
मला म्हणाले की आम्ही तूम्हाला १००००००/- रूपये े तो परं तू तूम्हाला
स रची रक्कम ही आम्हाला २ वषा$नंतर परत यावी लागे ल तसे च हा
लाखाचे र महीन्याला षे कडा ४ टक्के व्याज राने होणारी रक्कम
यावी लागे ल तसे च स र रक्कम परत गिमळे पय$ंत तूमची मालकीची
स्कपीओ
$ गिजप ही आमच्याकडे गहाण म्हणून ठे वावी लागे ल असे
सां गिगतले मला पै शाची अत्यं त गरज असल्याने मी नाईलास्तव त्यां च्या
सव$ अटी मान्य करून र महीन्याला शे कडा ४ टक्के व्याज राने पै से
घे ण्याची मान्य केले त्यावे ळी प्रथमे ष सूपेकर याने स र व्यवहारा
चावत आपण ोन साक्षी ारा समोर स्टम्प पे परवर गिलखीत करारनामा
करुन घे वू असे म्हणल्याने मी ते मान्य केले व साक्षी ार म्हणून आमचे
गावातील भरत श्रीरं ग थोरात, गणे श सू ाम शे ळके यांस फोन करून
JUDGMENT (32) APL-539.20.DOCX
घरी बोलावले त्यांनतर प्रथमे ष सूय$कांत सूपेकर याने त्याच्याकडील
१०,००,०००/- रुपये रोख रक्कम आमचे घरीच मला मोजून गि ली. त्यावे ळी
घरी माझा भाउ मागिणक शे ळके भरत श्रीरं ग थोरात गणे श सू ाम शे ळके
हे होते आमचे व्याजे ने घे तले ल्या पै शाचे व्यवहाराचा गिलखीत करार नामा
करण्याकरीता वाघाळे गावामध्ये सूगिवधा नसल्याने मी तसे च गिनले श
सूय$कोत सूपेकर प्रथमे ष सूय$कांत सूपेकर भाउ मागिणक शे ळके तसे च
भरत श्रीरं ग थोरात गाणे श सू ाम शे ळके असे गिशक् रापूर ये थे गे लो व
पायळ चौकामध्ये प्रथमे ष सूयी$कांत सु पेकर याने आणले ल्या स्टम्प
पे परवर ोन वषा$च्या परत बोलीवर १०,००,०००/- रुपये रोख रक्कम
प्रथमे ष सूय$कांत सूपेकर व त्याचा भाउ गिनले श सूपेकर यांचेकडू न त्यांन
र महा ४ टक्के व्याजे चे रक्कम े ण्याची बोलीवर घे तली असून स र
रक्कमे च्या परत फेडीवर माझी मालकीची स्कगिप$ओ गाडी नं . एम एच १२
के जे ९०४१ ही प्रथमे ष सूय$कांत सूपेकर व गिनले ष सूय$कांत सूपेकर
याच्याकडे तारण म्हणून ठे वली, आहे असा ले खी करारनामा पावती
प्रथमे ष सूय$कोत सूपेकर याने माझे कडू न साक्षी ार नामे भरत श्रीरं ग
थोरात, गणे श सू ाम शे ळके ोन्ही रा वाघाळे ता. गिशरुर गिज पूणे
यांचेसमोर तयार करून त्यावर साक्षी ार म्हणून त्याच्या सहया
घे तले ल्या आहे त. तसे च गिनले श सु पेकर याने माझे कडु न शर सहकारी
बँ क गिशक् रापूर शाखा या बैं केचा पाच चे क कोरे त्यावर मी सही केले ली
माझे नावाचे १००/- व ५००/- रूपये चे कही केले ल कोरे स्टम्प सूध् ा
घे तले आहे . व त्यानं तर प्रथमे ष सूपेकर व गिनले ष सूपेकर हे माझी
स्कगिप$ओ गाडी न. एम एच १२ के जे ९०४१ ही त्याच्या सोबत घे वन
ू गे ले
त्यानं तर गि . ११/११/२०१७ रोजी गिनले ष सूपेकर हा वाघाळे ये थे माझे घरी
आला त्यानं तर मी त्यांना आमचे ठरले प्रमाणे १०,००,०००/- रूपये चा
शे कडो ४ टक्के व्याज राने होणारी व्याजाची रक्कम रू ४००००/- ही
गिनले श सूपेकर यां च्याकडे गि ली असता गिनले श सूपेकरयाने मला ४ टक्के
व्याज परवडत नाही तूम्हाला १० टक्के व्याजाने पै से यावे लागतील
नाहीतर सव$ रक्कत मला पूढच्या मगिहन्यात परत करा असे म्हणला
त्यावे ळी मी त्यास आपला करार झाल्या प्रमाणे मी तूम्हाला न चूकता
व्याजाची रक्कम परत े त जाइल असे म्हणालो परं त ू त्यास त्याने नकार
गि ल्याने मला नाइलाजाने त्यास १० टक्के व्याज राने पै से े णे भाग
पडले त्यानं तर पूढच्या मगिहण्यात व्याजाची रक्कम घे वन
ू जाणे करीतो
गिनले ष सूपेकर आला त्यावे ळेस मी त्यास पै षाची जु ळवाजु ळव करून
६००००/- रू गि ले व राहीले ले व्याजाचे ४००००/- रू पूढच्या मगिहन्यात
JUDGMENT (32) APL-539.20.DOCX
े तो असे म्हणालो परं तू गिनले ष सूपेकर याने माझी घरा समोरील बजाज
प्लटीना मो. सा. न. एम एच १२ डी व्ही ८८६५ ही रागिहले ल्या व्याजाच्या
रक्कमे त घे वन
ू गे ला त्यांनतर मी त्यास व्याजोने घे तले ल्या मू ल
रकमे च्या व्याजापोटी आज रोजी पय$त रोख स्वरूपात २८,००,०००/-
ू ारी ०२.००
आता पय$त गि ले आहे त परं तू तीरही गि १५/०१/२०२० रोजी प
वा सु मारास गिनले श सूपेकर व प्रथमे श सूपेकर हे मौजे वाघाळे ता.
गिशरूर गिज. पूणे ये थे माझे घरी आले व त्यांनी मला तू व्याजाने घे तले ले
पै से ोल वषा$चे े तो असे म्हणाला होता. परं तू ते तू अ याप पय$ंत
माघारी गि ले नाहीत असे म्हणले ते व्हा मी त्यांस व्याजाची रक्कम र
मगिहन्याना त आहे असे त्यांना म्हणलो असता त्यांनी मला तू तूझा खे ड
ये थील घर तसे च माडवळा ये थील हॉटे ल आमचे नावे ने करून े असे
म्हणून गिशवीगाळ करून मारहाण करण्याची धमकी गि ली तसे च त्यानं तर
२०-०२२०२० रोजी सायं काळी ४.०० वा गिनले श सूपेकर याने त्या मो नं
८६९८५०५५५५ वरून माझी पत्नी सौ. गिनम$ला वाळासाहे ब शे ळके गिहचे
मो. नं . 9 ०२१६२५५५५ यावर फोन करून तूझ्या नवव्याने व्याजाने
घे तले ले पै से लवकर परत यायला सां ग नाहीतर मी त्यास गिजवं त
साडनार नाही असे म्हणून मला मारण्याची धमकी गि ली त्यामूळे मी
तसे च माझी पत्नी घाबरून गे लो आहे त्यामूळे मी आज रोजी त्यांचे
गिवरुध् तक् रार े ण्यास आलो आहे . तरी गि ०९/१०/२०१७ रोजी १०.०० वा
ते गि २६/२/२०२० रोजी सांयकाळी ४.०० वा पय$ंत वे ळोवे ळी मौजे .
वाघाळे ता. गिशरूर गिज पूणे गावचे ह ीत माझे राहते घरासमोर व
फोनवर इसम नामे १) गिनले श सूय$कांत सूपेकर २) प्रथमे ष सूय$कांत
सूपेकर रा. खरपूडी ता. खे ड गिज. पूणे यांनी मला व्याजाचे गि ले ले
१०,००,०००/-रू ोन वशा$च्या आत परत माघारी न गि ले चे व स र
घे तले ल्या रक्कमे च्या व्याजाचे पाटी आता पय$त मी रोख स्वरूपात
२८,०,००/- गि ले असताना सूध् ा मू ल माघारी गि ली नाही या
कारणावरून गिशवगाळ म ाटी करून गिजवे मारण्याची धमकी गि ली
आहे म्हणून माझी त्यांचे गिवरूध् काय े गिशर तक् रार आहे ."
10. The impugned FIR discloses a loan of Rs. 10,00,000/-
advanced by the Applicants to Respondent No. 2, repayable
with interest at 4% per month, which was subsequently
increased to 10% per month. The Applicants and Respondent
JUDGMENT (32) APL-539.20.DOCX
No.2 executed an agreement to evidence the loan transaction.
Respondent No.2 paid Rs. 20,00,000/- towards principal and
interest, with further amounts payable under the said
transaction.
11. Section 39 of the Maharashtra Money Lending
(Regulation) Act, 2014, reads as follows:
"39. Penalty for doing money-lending without valid licence
Whoever carries on the business of money lending without
obtaining a valid licence, shall, on conviction, be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to
fifty thousand rupees or with both."
12. Sub-section 3 of Section 2 of the Maharashtra Money
Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, reads as follows:
""business of money-lending" means the business of
advancing loans whether in cash or kind and whether or
not in connection with, or in addition to any other
business."
13. In matters relating to the registration or non-registration
of a First Information Report (FIR), the only requirement is
that the information provided to the police must disclose the
commission of a cognizable offence. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar
Pradesh and Ors.2, has crystallized the law on the registration
of an FIR and set out the situations/cases in which a
preliminary inquiry is permissible, as also the safeguards to be
followed in such cases.
(2014) 2 SCC 1
JUDGMENT (32) APL-539.20.DOCX
14. From the contents of the impugned FIR, the offence and
the ingredients of Section 39 of the Maharashtra Money
Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 are prima facie disclosed.
15. The nucleus of the arguments advanced by Mr. Abhishek
Kulkarni, learned advocate for the Applicants, relying on the
decision of this Court in Mandubai Vithoba Pawar (supra), is
that even if the impugned FIR is considered to set out the
ingredients of moneylending, the facts of the present case do
not show that the Applicants are in the "business of money
lending". His contention is that one instance of moneylending,
as alleged in the impugned FIR, does not qualify as a
"business of money lending".
16. In the case of Mandubai Vithoba Pawar, this Court, on
the facts of that case, observed that the FIR did not spell out
that the Petitioner therein was engaged in the "business of
money lending". Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said decision,
which refer to the facts of the case, are quoted below:
"2. The co-operative officer Grade-I Kallamb - respondent
no.3, original complainant, has filed the offence alleging
that the petitioner committed offence under the
Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Ordinance, 2014.
As per the FIR, the petitioner purported to purchase the suit
land No.196 by way of registered sale-deed but actually it
was money lending transaction of the year 1982. Writ
Petition however claims that petitioner had actually
purchased the land from Pandurang for consideration in
1982. The FIR has been registered after 33 years. There is
civil litigation pending between Pandurang and the
petitioner. The petitioner is 85 years old lady and is being
harassed by the filing of the FIR. She claims that the FIR
needs to be quashed.
JUDGMENT (32) APL-539.20.DOCX
3. On behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 3, affidavit-in-
reply has been filed. The respondent no.3 is working as co-
operative officer Grade-I Assistant Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, Kallamb. It is claimed that one Babasaheb gave
affidavit against the petitioner claiming that the petitioner
had given loan of Rs.9,000/- to the original complainant
Pandurang Ghogare and agreement was executed on
7.10.1982 that land admeasuring 40 R would be given back
after repayment of Rs.9,000/- with interest. Subsequently,
yet another agreement dated 13.8.1991 was executed
regarding payment of Rs.9,000/- and that land would be
returned to the complainant. There was Regular Civil Suit
filed as R.C.S. No.161/1992 regarding the sale-deed in
dispute. Copy of the judgment in Regular Civil Suit
No.161/1992 is filed finding that the sale-deed dated
7.10.1982 executed by Pandurang in favour of defendant
(petitioner) was towards security of loan amount.
Respondent no.3 has claimed in affidavit-in-reply that
District Level Committee Forum of the State Government
has concluded that the petitioner indulged in money
lending. Copy of the report filed by the Committee is
annexed with the petition. According to the respondents,
the petitioner, the complainant and other witnesses were
heard and it was concluded that the petitioner had indulged
in money lending. Consequently, the complaint was made
and offence has been registered vide Crime No.21/2015."
17. It is pertinent to refer to Ground No. II in this
Application Memo filed by the Applicant. Ground No. II is
reproduced below:
"II) It shall be appreciated that, the respondent no.2 has
filed false and bogus FIR by suppressing material fact that the
applicant has lodged the FIR u/s 307 and 120-B of the IPC
against the brother frirst informant Shamrao. That with money
and muscle power the respondent no.2 escaped from this
offence u/s 307 of IPC. Hence impugned FIR is the outcome of
the FIR lodged by the applicant only to take the revenge. That
the respondent no.2 has also lodged another false FIR against
the applicants u/s 420 and under Money Lending Act only to
harass the applicants. ".
("emphasis supplied")
JUDGMENT (32) APL-539.20.DOCX
18. In addition to the Applicant's contention in ground no. II
regarding another FIR filed under the Money Lenders Act, as
more particularly referred to by the Applicants, Mr. Aniket
Nikam has also submitted that an FIR was filed against the
Applicants in April 2020 for an offence under the Maharashtra
Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014.
Prima facie, Applicants appear to be involved in more
than one moneylending transaction. The facts in the instant
case are distinct from those in Mandubai Vithoba Pawar
(supra), and therefore the said decision does not assist the
Applicants.
19. Be that as it may, considering the allegations in the FIR
and the contentions of the Applicants in the memo of
Application, the ingredients of the offence under Section 39 of
the Maharashtra Money Lending Act 2014 are made out.
There is sufficient material on record to register the impugned
FIR, set the criminal law in motion, and proceed against the
Applicants.
20. The contentions of Mr. Abhishek Kulkarni, namely that
the impugned FIR is false and that the counterblast is a result
of the earlier FIR filed by the Applicants, are in the nature of a
defence for the Accused. This Court, under its jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, cannot
hold a mini-trial. Reference may be made to para no. 22 of the
JUDGMENT (32) APL-539.20.DOCX
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muskan
v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya)3
22. On the aspect of the powers of the Courts under Section 482 of the
Cr. P.C., it is settled that at the stage of quashing, the Court is not
required to conduct a mini trial. Thus, the jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Cr. P.C. with respect to quashing is somewhat limited as the
Court has to only consider whether any sufficient material is available
to proceed against the accused or not. If sufficient material is available,
the power under Section 482 should not be exercised.
21. In view of the above, no case is made out for indulgence
under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This
Criminal Application is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
22. After this judgment was dictated, Mr. Abhishek Kulkarni
submits that, during the pendency of this Application, an
interim order was passed restraining the Respondent No. 1
from filing the chargesheet. He requests that the interim order
be continued for 4 weeks from today. The request is opposed
by Mr. Sukanta Karmarkar and Mr. Aniket Nikam.
23. As the interim order in this Application has been in
operation since 09.02.2021, at the request of Mr. Abhishek
Kulkarni, the interim order dated 09.02.2021 is continued for
a period of four (4) weeks from today.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2355
