The central legal point established is that the lack of evidence, delay in filing the complaint, and ongoing financial transactions can indicate an abuse of process of law.

ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the charge sheet filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioner in C.C.No.8574/2023 (Cr.No.331/2019) for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 420 and 506 of IPC; Section 38 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act of 1961’) and Section 3 of the Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004 (for short ‘the Act of 2004’).

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1-State. Respondent No.2 is served but unrepresented.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant/respondent No.2 in the complaint dated 27.11.2019 that herself and her husband were running a business of manufacture of labels. One Mr. Santhosh introduced financier Mr.Sathish Kumar as they required liquid cash and they borrowed an amount of Rs.98,500/-on 01.10.2015 with interest at the rate of 5% per week. For this, the said Sathish took the cheques of them belongs to Andhra Bank and Bank of India and they were paying interest at the rate of 5% i.e., Rs.4,925/-per week. As the business was growing, the said Sathish was offering them money whenever needed from 01.10.2015 to 14.01.2019. In this duration, he gave an amount of Rs.65,36,000/-for which, he used to charge 5% interest per week and when the payment was not made, he was adding interest to the principle amount and was charging interest and penalty. The transaction was ended up paying with an amount of Rs.1,74,23,706/-to his personal account and to his C-tract account located in Basavanagudi branch. There was a money laundering case which was registered on 02.08.2018 in Baiyappanahalli police station against the petitioner-Sathish Kumar.

4. It is further stated in the complaint that on 08.01.2019, the petitioner had kidnapped her husband and threatened her and forcefully made her to sign on the agreement of Rs.42,00,000/-with 21 cheques of Andhra Bank. At that time, she did not have any option other than signing the cheques and the agreement to save her husband and kid. After the incident, the petitioner repeatedly came to her house and office and threatened by getting local rowdies. It is also stated that as the complainant’s family afraid to give complaint and paid an amount of Rs.7,40,000/-through NEFT and cash by discounting her company cheques and asked to return the cheques for the value of Rs.7,40,000/-out of earlier 21 cheques. But the petitioner refused to return those cheques by saying that the amount of Rs.7,40,000/-is adjusted towards interest and they have to clear all those 21 cheques. Thereafter, the petitioner started to collect 1% interest per day that means 30% interest per month and when the amount was not paid in time, the petitioner was continuously added the same to the principle amount and threatened them to pay the amount how much he demands. Hence, without any other alternative, the complainant approached the police and filed the complaint. Based on the complaint, FIR was registered in Cr.No.331/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 365, 506 of IPC; Section 38 of the Act of 1961 and Section 3 of the Act of 2004. The police have investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. While filing the charge sheet, deleted Section 365 of IPC and added 420 of IPC. Hence, the present petition is filed before this Court.

5. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the very initiation of criminal proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of law since there is no prima facie material evidence collected by respondent No.1 to implicate the petitioner in the alleged offences. The alleged execution of an agreement is said to have been taken place between the husband of respondent No.2 and the petitioner on 09.01.2019 wherein respondent No.2 also signed the said document as a witness but the complaint was lodged belatedly i.e., after the lapse of ne