The main legal point established in the judgment is that the demand of Rs.45,00,000 cannot be construed as charging exorbitant interest under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, and the alleged offences under Section 420 and 506(1) IPC were not made out.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the complaint in C.C.No.9011 of 2019 on the file of CB and CB CID, Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai and to quash the same.)

1. The petition is to quash the final report in C.C.No.9011 of 2019 on the file of the Special Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB and CBCID, Egmore, Chennai, for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 506(1) IPC r/w 3 and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act.

2. It is alleged in the final report that the second respondent/de facto complainant had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs only) in two instalments (i.e., Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only) in October 2008 and Rs.50,00,000 (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) in March 2010) from the petitioner, promising to repay with interest @ 12% p.a.; that the second respondent had paid the principal amount of Rs.1.5 Crore together with 12% interest in August 2012; that a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as “MOU” for the sake of convenience) was entered into on 01.06.2015: that the second respondent had paid additional interest of Rs.98,80,339/- and thus, he had totally paid Rs.5,18,18,000/- of which Rs.3,61,91,489/- was interest; that the petitioner had thus charged interest @ 33 p.a., which is prohibited under Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 and; that the petitioner is also guilty of the offences under Sections 420 and 506 (1) of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. (a) M/s. A.L.Ganthimathi, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the admitted case that there was a MOU entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent/defacto complainant on 15.06.2015, though it is now the case of the second respondent that such an Agreement was obtained under force, which is an afterthought.

3. (b) The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the said MOU was entered into on 15.06.2015, wherein it was agreed that the second respondent was due to pay Rs.3,10,00,000/-; that the petitioner agreed that he would receive a sum of Rs.2,65,00,000/- in full and final settlement of his dues if the second respondent paid the said amount in instalments on or before 11.10.2015; and that if he delayed the payment, he had to pay Rs.3,10,00,000/-. As per the Agreement, the second respondent had paid Rs.1.75 Crore as per the time schedule. The remaining Rs.90,00,000/- was paid in instalments, and the last payment was made on 25.05.2016. Since the petitioner did not keep up the promise as per the MOU, the second respondent was liable to pay Rs.45,00,000/- which was the agreed amount to be paid in case of delay in making the payment. Hence, the petitioner filed a Suit before this Court, which was later transferred to the IV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, numbered O.S.No.4107 of 2019. The FIR was lodged thereafter, while the Suit was pending. The impugned final report, is therefore an abuse of process of law.

3 (c). The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner by the Judgment dated 04.03.2023, wherein this Court found that the defacto complainant had to pay Rs.45,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 % Per Annum. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, prayed that the impugned final report is liable to be quashed.

4. (a) The learned counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant, per contra, submitted that the allegation is that for a loan of Rs.1.5 crores, the second respondent was made to pay more than Rs.5,00,00,000/. The MOU was obtained under coercion. The second respondent honoured the terms of the MOU and paid Rs.2,65,00,000/-. However, the demand of Rs.45,00,000/- in excess would amount to charging exorbitant interest, which is punishable.

4 (b). The learned counsel further submitted that the second r