Dismissed¶6

Dhanraj Shrikrushna Jamode v. State of Maharashtra, through Pso Telhara

Bombay HC6 Nov 2025WP/627/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Money-lending FIR quashing refused; Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 - Section 39 offence, Section 2(3) business of money-lending definition; solitary-transaction argument rejected; stamp vendor found with blank signed stamp papers (176) and original sale deeds (38 per para 3 / 35 per para 4 of the judgment); no interference at investigation stage; petitioner to cooperate; Crime No.0156/2025, Telhara, Dist. Akola; High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench; Criminal Writ Petition No.627 of 2025; dismissed 06.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Blank signed stamp papers in different names, coupled with recovery of original sale-deeds from the petitioner's possession, give every reason to believe the petitioner is involved in the business of money-lending notwithstanding his claim to be a stamp vendor. ¶4

Dhanraj Shrikrushna Jamode Vs State of Maharashtra, through Pso Telhara — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR (Crime No.0156/2025, Section 39, Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014) can be quashed on the petitioner's contention that one solitary transaction cannot establish that he carries on the business of money-lending within Section 2(3) of the Act of 2014.

¶2

Court's answer

¶4

Ratio / Principle

It is too early to conclude that the transaction mentioned in the FIR is the only transaction in which the petitioner is involved.

¶5

Key takeaways

This is not a stage for the Court to interfere in the investigation, particularly since the petitioner has options available once the investigation is completed.ratio¶5
The petitioner should cooperate in the investigation.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal writ petition before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of an FIR dated 22.05.2025 registered as Crime No.0156/2025 under Section 39 of the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 was dismissed. The petitioner argued that one solitary transaction (Rs.4,85,000/- at 3% per month) could not bring him within the definition of 'business of money-lending' under Section 2(3) of the Act of 2014, and that possession of stamp papers was explained by his being a stamp vendor. Per the State's investigation, he possessed 38 original sale deeds of different persons and 176 blank but signed stamp papers in different names. The Court held that blank signed stamp papers in different names, coupled with recovery of original sale-deeds (stated as 35 in the reasoning paragraph), gave every reason to believe he was in the money-lending business; that it was too early to treat the FIR transaction as his only one; and that this was not a stage to interfere in the investigation, directing the petitioner to cooperate. Bench: Anil L. Pansare and Raj D. Wakode, JJ.; decided 06.11.2025.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:11579-DB

¶2

¶3

928 cr wp 627.25.odt. -.odt

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.627 OF 2025 Dhanraj s/o Shrikrushna Jamode

¶6

.Vs.

¶7

State of Maharashtra thr. PSO Telhara Dist. Akola and ors.

¶8

__________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.

¶9

Mr. Nitin Vyawahare, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.A. Badar, APP for respondent No. 1 and 2/State.

¶10

CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATED : 06.11.2025.

¶11

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash First Information Report lodged by respondent No.2. The First Information Report has been lodged on 22.05.2025 which came to be registered vide Crime No.0156/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 39 of the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 (for short, ‘the Act of 2014’). 2. The argument is that one solitary transaction cannot be taken aid of to hold that the petitioner is involved in the business of money lending as defined under Section 2(3) of the Act of 2014. The First Information Report indicates that the petitioner has given money to the tune of Rs.4,85,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs and Eighty Five Thousand Only) at the rate of 3% per month.

¶12

¶13

928 cr wp 627.25.odt. -.odt

¶14

Learned APP submits that it transpired in investigation that petitioner possessed 38 original sale deeds of different persons and 176 blank but signed stamps papers in the name of different persons indicating that the petitioner is involved in the business of money lending.

¶15

As such petitioner’s argument is that he being stamp vendor, possessing stamp papers cannot be said to be an evidence to show that the petitioner is involved in money lending business. However, if the stamp papers are signed and are in different names and if the stamp papers are blank, coupled with recovery of 35 original sale-deeds from the possession of petitioner, then there is every reason to believe that the petitioner is involved in the business of money lending.

¶16

That being so, it will be too early to jump to the conclusion that the transaction mentioned in the First Information Report is the only transaction which the petitioner is involved into. This is not a stage, where we should interfere in the investigation particularly when petitioner has number of options available once the investigation is completed. The petitioner should cooperate in the investigation.

¶17

There is thus, no merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶18

[RAJ D. WAKODE, J] [ANIL L. PANSARE, J.]

¶19

manisha

Dhanraj Shrikrushna Jamode v. State of Maharashtra, through Pso Telhara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanraj Shrikrushna Jamode v. State of Maharashtra, through Pso Telhara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Bapurao Kshirsagar, Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary, Home Department Mantralaya, Mumbai

Dilip Shriram Lohkare Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Home Department and Anr.

Rameshwar @ Golu S/O Deoshankar Verma vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Advisiory Board of Govt. of Maharashtra

Sau. Dipika Pankaj Bhagat vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary Dep. of Home Mantralaya Mumbai 32 and 3

The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central (Osd), Nagpur vs Smt. Jyoti Suresh Bajoria

Rajendra Ramlal Jaiswal Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ram Nagar, Ps, Tah. and Dist. Chandrapur and Another.