A solitary instance of money lending does not constitute an offence under the Money Lenders Act, and inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not the appropriate remedy for factual disputes.

ORDER

Petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.721/2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur, which arise out of Crime No.1187/2020 of Viyyoor Police Station.

2. According to the prosecution, the accused had, with intent to cheat the public, disbursed amounts for exorbitant interest and indulged in money lending business from the year 2011 onwards, and also accepted blank cheque leaves and blank papers afÏxed with revenue stamps, thereby committing the offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860, apart from Sections 3 and 4 r/w Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act , 1958, and Section 9 (a)(b) of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act , 2012.

3. Sri. M.R.Dhanil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the prosecution allegations are totally false and even if the entire allegations are admitted, only one instance of money lending is made out. It was submitted that this Court has, time and again, observed in various decisions that a solitary instance of money lending will not attract the offence under the Money Lenders Act, and hence, the proceedings ought to be quashed.

4. Sri. S. Nidheesh, the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the contentions raised are all factual disputes, which cannot be decided in this proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The learned Public Prosecutor also endorsed the said submissions.

5. Considering the nature of contentions raised, and on perusal of the materials produced, this Court is of the view that it is not proper to sift through the materials or to weigh the materials to arrive at a conclusion in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C as held in the State of Kerala v. O.C.Kuttan [(1999) 2 SCC 651]. The remedy if any of the petitioner is to seek discharge. Therefore, while declining to exercise the inherent jurisdiction under Cr.P.C, this Court relegates the petitioner to seek the remedy of discharge, if available under law and if legally entitled.

Accordingly, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to seek discharge in accordance with law, this criminal miscellaneous case is dismissed. If any application for personal exemption is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the learned Magistrate without undue delay.