O R D E R

The petitioner is the 7th accused in Crime No.1641/2013 of Kollam West Police Station. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 451, 506(ii) and 294(b) r/w 34 IPC and also under Section 13 and 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958. The case is registered based on a complaint received from the defacto complainant as against the petitioner herein along with 6 others. Annexure- A1 is the FIR.

2. The prosecution case is that, the accused carrying business of money lending without having any license from the authority to lend money and it is further stated that the accused lend money to the defacto complainant and obtained cheque leafs and signed stamp papers from her with an intention to cheat her for unlawful gain. It is further alleged that the accused have received an amount of 15 lakhs towards the interest, but without returning the documents to the defacto complainant and after trespassing the house, threatened and abused her with filthy language and tried to take away the household articles.

3. The Police, after investigation, filed the final report before the Temporary Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kollam alleging offences under Section 13 and 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958. Annexure-A2 is the final report. Aggrieved by the same, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. This Court perused the final report in this case. This Court also perused Annexure-A1 complaint. The petitioner herein is the 7th accused in the above case. A perusal of the complaint would show that, the allegation is that the accused lend money to the defacto complainant and collected blank cheques and promissory notes as security. Thereafter, on 25.11.2013 at 2.00 PM, the 2nd accused and other accused went to the house of the defacto complainant and abused her. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

6. Admittedly, only a solitary instance of money lending is alleged against the accused. This Court in Sasidharan vs. Sub Inspector [2023 (1) KHC 31], observed that, to attract Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, a solitary instance of money lending is not enough. But, a series of activity, taking the form of a business of advancing and realizing loan is necessary. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above said judgment:

“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 a solitary instance of money lending, but a series of activity, taking the form of a business of advancing and realizing loans:

11. The term business has a significant connotation in legal parlance. A continuous or series activity which partake the character of an occupation can be regarded as business under law. The word business is a term of wide important and has to mean an activity carried on continuously and systematically by use of his labour or skill with a view to earn an income. The term has to be perceived from the purport of the Statute and the contextual implications. Dehors the contextual setting one salient feature of business is continuity. Reference can profitably be made to the various definitions of the term business as enunciated in P. Ramanatha Aiyar's "The Advanced Law Lexicon” 4th Edition. In all those definitions, continuous activity is regarded as essential to treat an activity as business.”

7. Similarly, in Vimal v. State of Kerala and Others [2015 KHC 2395], this Court observed that, lending money to a person under one or more documents will not by itself constitute the offence of unauthorized money lending meant under the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above said judgment:

“1. A prosecution under S. 18 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 is sought to be quashed under S. 482 of the Crl. P. C. The crime in this cas