ORDER

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.3256/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram, arising from Crime No.1186/2014 of Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is charge sheeted alleging offences punishable under Section 420 IPC read with Section 13 and 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners gave a loan of Rs.one lakh to the 3rd respondent which was purportedly to be repaid with interest at the rate of Rs.500/- per day and while so, they filed a case against the husband of the 3rd respondent which was later withdrawn. It is also alleged that even after receipt of Rs.80,000/- in installments, the petitioners initiated criminal prosecution against the 3rd respondent in terms of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that the petitioners committed the afore mentioned offences.

Annexure-A is the FIR. Annexure-B is the final report. According to the petitioners, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out against the petitioners. Hence this criminal miscellaneous case.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. A perusal of the final report filed against the petitioners would show that the allegation is only to the effect that there was a single instance in which the petitioners lend money to the 3rd respondent on interest and after collecting huge amount towards installments, prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was initiated. Whether in such situation, the offences alleged are attracted is the question.

5. This Court in Dominic Peter v. State of Kerala and Others [MANU/KE/0886/2019] considered the ingredients to attract the offence under the Kerala Money Lenders Act. It will be better to extract relevant portion of that judgment:

“5. In order to be a money lender as provided under Section 2 (7) of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, the main or subsidiary occupation of that person must be the business of advancing and realising loans or acceptance of deposits in the course of such business. A single instance of lending money is not sufficient for a person to be a money lender [see Balakrishna v. Babu

1994(1) KLT 947].

6. In this case, there is absolutely no allegation that the main or subsidiary occupation of the petitioner is the business of advancing and realising loans or acceptance of deposits. No document as alleged by the second respondent was also seized from the possession of the petitioner. There is absolutely no material before the Court to indicate that the main or subsidiary occupation of the petitioner is advancing and realising loans or acceptance of deposits in the course of such business In view of the above reasons, the petitioner cannot be said to be a money lender. Since the petitioner is not a money lender, the provisions under the Kerala Money Lenders Act and the Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, are not applicable against the petitioner. Having gone through the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that there is no material before the court against the petitioner constituting the ingredients of the offences alleged. For the said reason alone, the final report and further proceedings against the petitioner are to be quashed. ”

6. Similarly in Vimal v. State of Kerala [2015 (1) KLT

524], this Court observed like this:

“A prosecution under Section 18 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 is sought to be quashed under Section 482 of the Crl.P.C. The crime in this case was registered suo motu by the police on the basis of seizure of some cheques from the possession of the petitioner herein. The grievance of the petitioner is that these cheques were not, in fact, received by him in money lending business. He seeks orders quashing the prosecution on the ground that such a prosecution will be a sheer abuse of legal process. On a perusal of the entire prosecution records including the FIR and the final