ORDER :

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash all the proceedings in STC.No.311 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sendurai.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/defacto complainant borrowed a loan of Rs.7,00,000/- from the petitioner during the year 2017. When the same was not repaid, the petitioner filed two suits against the second respondent for recovery of money. On 26.06.2022, second respondent went to the petitioner’s house and asked him to accompany him to the Lok Adalat hearing so as to arrive at a compromise in respect of the dispute. At that time, the petitioner allegedly abused him in filthy language and drove him away by threatening to commit murder. Hence, a complaint was preferred, based on which an FIR was registered in Crime No.128 of 2022 against the petitioner for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of the Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed on 19.07.2022 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sendurai, and the same was taken on file for trial.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- and another sum of Rs.6,00,000/-from the petitioner after executing promissory notes dated 02.08.2017 and 03.08.2017 respectively. However, the second respondent failed to repay the said amounts. Therefore, the petitioner filed suits for recovery of money in OS.Nos.78 & 79 of 2020. While the suits were pending for adjudication, on 30.06.2022, that too after a period of two years from the initiation of the suits, the second respondent lodged the present complaint with the above allegations. Further, the alleged occurrence is said to have been taken place in the house of the petitioner. In order to escape from the legal consequences of the civil proceedings, the second respondent filed the said false complaint, which is clearly an abuse of process of law.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 294 (b), 506 (i) IPC and Section 4 of the Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 are not made out against the petitioner. The respondent failed to establish the necessary ingredients required to attract the charges for the offence under Section 4 of the Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel relied on the Order of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.18737 of 2023, dated 17.04.2025.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that on 26.06.2022, being the suit hearing date, the second respondent went to the house of the accused and expressed his willingness to settle the dispute before the Lok Adalat. The second respondent also agreed to pay whatever amount fixed by the Court. However, the petitioner demanded more money than the agreed portion of interest along with principal. Subsequently, the petitioner abused him in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the offences under Section 294 (b), 506 (i) IPC and 4 of the Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003, clearly attracted against the petitioner.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that upon perusal of the records and the statements recorded from the second respondent, the charges under the above provisions are clearly made out against the petitioner. He further submitted that the grounds raised by the petitioner can be considered only during the trial, and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.128 of 2022 for