A.M. Babu, J.

An FIR was registered against the petitioner. He seeks to quash it and all proceedings pursuant thereto. The relief is sought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C for short).

2. Parties are referred to in this order as they are shown in the memorandum of the criminal miscellaneous case.

3. The first respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. A copy of it is annex-A. The complaint was forwarded under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C directing an investigation. Thereupon annex-H FIR was registered at the police station. The same is impugned in this proceedings.

4. The dispute is between the petitioner and the first respondent. They have their own version about the dispute. The version of the petitioner is limned in the memorandum of Crl.M.C. The first respondent has depicted his version in annex-A complaint.

5. The petitioner's version is stated below: Himself and the first respondent are known to each other for several years. The latter and his wife are builders who do real estate business too. They invited the petitioner for a joint venture. He accepted the offer and gave them Rs.41,90,050/-. The petitioner was made to believe that his money would be returned with share of profits. But the money was not returned. Mediators intervened. A settlement was arrived at. An agreement was executed on 7.6.2012. The first respondent undertook to return the amount of Rs.41,90,050/- within three months. But he did not. He took hasty steps to sell his property. Hence the petitioner filed a suit, O.S.No.97/2013. The first respondent sold his property despite the order of attachment passed by the Sub-Court in O.S.No. 97/2013.

6. The version of the first respondent goes as follows: The petitioner is doing money lending business without a licence. The first respondent was short of money to buy an apartment. He was contacted by the petitioner through one Jamal and offered to help. The petitioner came to the house of the first respondent on 24.3.2012 and paid him a loan of Rs.10 lakhs. From the latter and his wife the former collected altogether ten signed blank cheques, a few signed blank papers and the certified copy of the title deed of the property of the first respondent. The petitioner promised to return the signed blank cheques, signed blank papers and the document when the amount of Rs.10 lakhs was repaid with interest. The first respondent repaid Rs.8 lakhs towards the principal and Rs.6 lakhs towards interest. He raised the balance and met the petitioner. The petitioner demanded Rs.6 lakhs more towards interest. He forged an agreement and filed a suit against the first respondent and his wife.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

8. One of the offences alleged against the petitioner is one punishable under Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 (for short the Act). The other offences alleged against him are those punishable under Secs 384, 420,448, 468 and 469 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short). The petitioner has a threefold contention. One, the allegations against him in annex-A complaint do not constitute any offence. Two, the dispute between the parties is civil in nature. And three, the petitioner's version of the dispute alone could be true and the allegations against him are per se false.

9. One allegation against the petitioner is that he is doing money lending business without a licence. A person whose main or subsidiary occupation is the business of advancing and realising loans or accepting of deposits in the course of such business is a 'money lender' as defined in Section 2(7) of the Act. Section 3 of the Act prohibits doing of money lending business without a licence. Carrying on the business of money lending without a licence is punishable under Section 17 of the Act.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a single instance of lending a loan does not amount to doing of money lendi