The petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No. 859/2014 of Sooranadu Police Station, Kollam registered for the offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 17 read with Rule 3 of the Money Lenders Act, 1958 approached this court with this petition to invoke the inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR.

2. The prosecution case is that on 5.2.2008 the de facto complainant had borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from this petitioner agreeing to repay the same with interest. At the time of availing the loan, this petitioner had received a blank cheque as well some signed blank papers as security for the loan. Though he repaid the entire amount on 06.06.2008, there was an illegal demand for a further sum of Rs.15,000/-.When he refused to yield to his illegal demand, the cheque was presented, but it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. Thereafter by misusing the cheque, he filed a Criminal case against him before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta and a civil suit before the Sub Court, Karunagapally. The petitioner had thus cheated the de facto complainant and committed the aforesaid offences.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for 2nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is not a money lender as defined under the Kerala Money-lenders Act and he has not committed any offence as alleged. In fact, the de facto complainant is his neighbour. As a neighbour he approached him in the year 2008 for financial assistance to meet some contingency and borrowed a sum of Rs.5 lakhs on 21.12.2008 agreeing to repay the same within a month. He had also handed over a cheque dated 21.1.2009 as security. On failure to repay the amount, the petitioner presented the cheque for encashment. But it was returned with an endorsement as 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter he proceeded against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the case is pending as S.T.No.439/2009. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had also filed a suit for realisation of money before the Sub Court, Karunagapally. Though the de facto complainant entered appearance and filed written statement denying the transaction, remained absent subsequently and hence the suit was decreed ex parte as per Annexure A3. After the decree, the de facto complainant moved a petition before that court to set aside the ex parte order as well the ex parte decree. That was also dismissed. That order was challenged before this Court as FAO No.103/2014, which was allowed by this Court as per judgment dated 18.06.2014 and the decree was set aside and the parties were directed to appear before the civil court where the civil suit was pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact he is not a money lender and he has absolutely no business of money lending. He had only paid an amount of Rs.5 lakhs to the 2nd respondent on his request considering the fact that he was his neighbour. But he has been falsely implicated in this case as a money lender which is only an abuse of process of the court. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after initiation of the criminal proceedings in question a search was conducted by the investigating agency, but nothing has been seized as revealed by Annexure-A5. Learned counsel has submitted that there was absolutely no intention to cheat the de facto complainant/the 2nd respondent at the time of handing over the amount of Rs.5 lakhs on his request and so the essential ingredients to attract an offence under Section 420 IPC is also lacking in this case. Hence he seeks to quash the entire proceedings initiated on the basis of registration of FIR No. 859/2014 of Sooranadu Police Station.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that there is a strong case to be proceeded with and the investigation of the case is well in prog