SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Ker) 835

BHASKARAN PILLAI SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
Dominic Peter – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : K. Rakesh, Adv.
For the Respondent: V. Sreeja, PP.

ORDER :

Bhaskaran Pillai Sudheendra Kumar, J.

1. The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 162 of 2017 on the files of the court below. The offences alleged are punishable under Section 3 read with Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 and Section 2 (c) read with Section 9 (a) of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012.

2. The petitioner has filed this Criminal M.C. praying for quashing the final report and further proceedings against the petitioner in the above said case.

3. Heard both sides.

4. The prosecution allegation is that the de facto complainant, who is the 2nd respondent herein, borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the 2nd witness in the police charge borrowed an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the petitioner and thereafter, the de facto complainant repaid an amount of Rs. 1,09,000/- after three months and the other person repaid an amount of Rs. 26,000/- after five months. However, the petitioner did not return the cheques entrusted by them with the petitioner.

5. In order to be a money lender as provided under Section 2 (7) of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, the main or subsidiary occupation of that person must be the business of advancing a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top