A single instance of lending money does not constitute engaging in money lending as a business under the Kerala Money Lenders Act, leading to quashing of proceedings.

ORDER

These two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are connected.

Therefore, I am disposing of these two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases by a common order.

2. The petitioner in Crl.M.C No.6066/2016 is accused No.6 in C.C No.2872/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram and the petitioner in Crl.M.C No.6043/2016 is the 17^th accused in the above case. The above case is charge sheeted alleging offences punishable under Sections 468 , 471 and Section 506 (i) of IPC and Sections 13 and

17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act .

3. The Charge Witness No.1, Faizal lodged a complaint against the petitioner and 17 others alleging that, he had borrowed various amounts from all these 18 persons for his business purpose and the said persons, despite receipt of interest, are initiating legal proceedings for huge amount utilising the blank cheques and other securities offered by him as security at the time of availing the amounts. The petitioner in Crl.M.C No.6066/16 is charged with an allegation that, he lend around Rs.26,90,000/- to CW1 without any licence for money lending and Rs.5,00,000/- was returned to the petitioner. According to the CW1, an amount of Rs.55,70,000/- was paid till date as interest and as security for the said transaction the petitioner had obtained cheque leafs and stamp papers from CW1. According to the prosecution, the 6^th accused committed the o

4. Similarly, the allegation against the 17^th accused who is the petitioner in Cr.M.C No.6043/16 is that, the petitioner had lend around Rs.10,00,000/- to CW1 without any licence for money lending and amount of Rs.12,40,000/- was paid as interest. It is also submitted that, as security for the said transaction petitioner obtained cheque leafs and stamp papers from CW1. Hence, it is alleged that, the accused committed the offence.

5. According to the petitioners, even if the entire allegations are accepted no offence is made out. The Public Prosecutor submitted that, the contentions raised by the petitioners are to be raised before the trial court at the appropriate stage. This Court considered the contention of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. Even though notice was issued to the 2^nd respondent, there is no appearance for the 2^nd respondent. A perusal of the Final Report would show that, the case of the prosecution is that, the Charge Witness No.1 borrowed money from the petitioners after collecting blank cheque and other papers as security. The petitioners tried to forge those document and hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. The offence under Sections 13 and 17 of the Money Lenders Act is also alleged.

6. In Gopalan A.M v. Sub Inspector of Police, Kothamangalam Police Station [2016 KHC 1094] , this Court considered the ingredients to attract the offence under the Money Lenders Act. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the judgment.

“The learned Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded that the statements of the witnesses concerned, have revealed that they were subscribers of various chitties being conducted by the petitioner and at the time when the auction amounts in the chitty were obtained, such documents were obtained from them by the petitioner as security for the chitty amount. Even if such documents are seized from the possession of the petitioner, unless and until it is shown that he is conducting money lending, either Section 420 IPC or Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act cannot be attracted. Here, even if securities are obtained through whatever means for disbursing chitty amounts, Section 17 of the has no application. An offence under Section 17 of the can be attracted only in a case wherein a person has been conducting money lending without licence or he has been violating the terms of lice