Point of Law: Money-lender means a person whose main or subsidiary occupation is business of advancing and realising loans or acceptance of deposits in course of such business.

ORDER :

Petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings initiated in C.C.No.1275/2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha, alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 506(1) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act (for short the Act).

2. According to the prosecution, the accused had without any license or permission and with intent to cheat the defacto complainant had on 29.12.2013, lend an amount of Rs.12,00,000/-and obtained signed stamp papers and thereafter failed to return the amount and thereby committed the offences alleged against him.

3. Smt.R.Ranjanie, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the entire prosecution against the petitioner is without any authority and is liable to be quashed. According to her, even if the allegations are assumed to be true, still the offences under the Act or those under Section 420 or Section 34 IPC are made out and therefore, the complaint being one initiated with malafides, is liable to be quashed.

4. Sri.M.A.Abdul Hakhim, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand submitted that the definition of the word money lender does not exclude a single money lending activity and therefore, considering the purpose and object of the Act, the contentions of the petitioner cannot be accepted. It was further submitted that having regard to the nature of allegations, the same is a matter to be considered during trial and cannot be quashed by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor also supported the contentions of the counsel for the 2nd respondent.

6. I have considered the rival contentions.

7. Primarily, petitioner is being prosecuted for allegedly lending money to the 2nd respondent. The final report alleges that, petitioner had lend money to the defacto complainant without any permission or license.

8. No where in the final report is it mentioned that petitioner is carrying on the business of money lending or has lend money to any other person other than petitioner. What is revealed from the final report is that a solitary instance of lending of money by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is treated as the activity of money lending.

9. A perusal of the object of the Act reveals that the Act is intended to regulate and control the business of money lenders in the State of Kerala. The definition of the word money lender as per Section 2(7) is as follows:

“[(7)”Money-lender” means a person whose main or subsidiary occupation is the business of advancing and realising loans or acceptance of deposits in the course of such business and includes any person appointed by him to be in charge of a branch office or branch offices or a liaison office or any other office by whatever name called, of his principal place of business and a pawn broker, but does not include -]”

(a) a bank or a co-operative society; or

(b) the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (Central Act 31 of 1956); or

[(bb) the Industrial Credit and Investment corporation of India limited incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (7 of 1913)];

(c) the Industrial Finance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (Central Act 15 of 1948); or

[(d) xxxx]

(e) the State Financial Corporation established under Section 3 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (Central Act 63 of 1951); or

(f) any institution established by or under an Act of Parliament or the Legislature of a State, which grants any loan or advance in pursuance of the provisions of the Act; or

(g) any other institution in the public sector, whether incorporated or not exempted by the Government by notification.”

10. A glance at the definition and a reference to the preamble as well as the objects of the Act reveal that what is intended to be regulated, is not