The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transactions between the parties were purely commercial and not covered under the Money Lenders Act, leading to the quashing of the proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.Nos.2661, 2662 and 2660 of 2020 respectively, pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for the exclusive trial at CCB Cases (relating to Cheating Cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai – 600 005.)

Common Order

1. The Criminal Original Petitions have been filed praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.Nos.2661, 2662 and 2660 of 2020 respectively, pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for the exclusive trial at CCB Cases (relating to Cheating Cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai.

2. The brief facts, in nutshell, are as follows:

(i) In All the Criminal Original Petitions, the petitioner / accused Sridhar is the Executive Vice-Chairman & CEO of M/s.IndoStar Capital Finance Limited, Mumbai and one of the Directors of M/s.JR Capital Services (P) Ltd.

(ii) The defacto complainant in Crl.O.P.No.19170 of 2020, is one of the partners of the Firm viz., M/s.LCS Foundations, on 31.08.2019, gave a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai, addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, stating that one Sridhar, the petitioner / accused, is the Director of J.R.Capital Services (P) Ltd., offered unsecured loan of Rs.2,10,00,000/-, to the defacto complainant's Firm, when it was in financial crises. The petitioner demanded 16% rate of interest per annum from the year 2009 to 2011. He, subsequently, increased the rate of interest to 18% per annum from 2011 to 2014, thereafter 22% per annum from 2015, thereby, violated the provisions of Prevention of Charging of Exorbitant Interest Act. Increasing the rate of interest and receiving higher interest is against Sections 2(3) and 3 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. The petitioner, without any license or maintaining any records, not issuing any receipts for receiving the payments by the debtor is totally against the provision under Section 3 of the Act, punishable Under Sections 17 & 18 of the Tamil Nadu Moneylenders Act, 1957. Sofar the petitioner collected Rs.6.7 Crores of which Rs.4.6 Crores, as interest. Hence, the case.

(iii) The defacto complainant in Crl.O.P.No.19174 of 2020, is the Director of M/s.LCS City Makers (P) Ltd., on 31.08.2019, gave a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Vepery, Chennai, stating that one Sridhar – Petitioner/Accused, a co-student of the brother of the complainant from School and College level volunteered and offered unsecured loan of Rs.8,00,00,000/-, to the complainant's Firm, when it was in financial crises. The petitioner, his associates and his Company JR Capital Services (P) Ltd., demanded interest at the rate of 22% p.a., from the year 2012 onwards, against the provisions of Charging of Exorbitant Interest Act. The accused collected Rs.11,35,10,247/- towards principal and interest from the defacto complainant. Further, the petitioner received Rs.3,35,10,27/-, as interest, from the defacto complainant during the period 2012 – 2017. Believing the sugar coated words of the accused that he would arrange a further loan of Rs.25 Crores, the defacto complainant registered the property (Flat) at Coimbatore and Besant Nagar belonging to the complainant's side in favour of the accused Firm. Hence, the charge under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i) IPC and Sections 4 r/w 3 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003.

(iv) The defacto complainant in Crl.O.P.No.19222 of 2020, is the Director of M/s.LCS Corporate Services (P) Ltd., Chennai, on 31.08.2019, gave a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Vepery, Chennai, stating that one Sridhar – Petitioner/Accused, a co-student of the brother of the complainant from School and College level, volunteered and offered unsecured loan of Rs.3,00,00,000/- to the complainant's Firm, when it was in