O R D E R

Petitioner is the accused in C.C No.2286/2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Punalur, arising out of Crime No.837/2014 of Punalur Police Station, Kollam, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 read with Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958.

2. According to the prosecution, the accused, in violation of the Money Lenders Act, 1958, and without any licence, indulged in money lending business and on 12.05.2014, 80 documents were seized apart from three stamp papers indicating money transactions and other documents, and thereby committed the offences alleged.

3. Sri. E.D George, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, even, if the entire prosecution allegations are assumed to be proved, still all what it would indicate is a solitary instance of providing financial assistance, which is not sufÏcient to find the accused guilty of the offences alleged. The learned Counsel relied upon the decision in Vimal v. State of Kerala [2015(1) KLT 524].

4. Sri. Noushad K.A, the learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand contended that statements given by CW1 and CW2, prima facie indicate that the accused has been indulging in money lending business for a long period, without any licence and further that the documents seized from his possession also clearly indicated that he is indulging in regular lending of money.

5. The crime was registered in the year 2014 and cognizance was taken in 2016. For the last eight years, petitioner has chosen to participate in the proceedings before trial court, while this petition challenging the proceedings have been filed only in the year 2024, perhaps on the eve of trial.

6. The power to quash a criminal proceeding should be exercised with circumspection, and that too in exceptional cases. While exercising the inherent power, this Court ought not to embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR, or the final report. The Supreme Court had observed in Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. 2022 (2) SCC 129, that the power under section 482 should be exercised sparingly and cautiously and only when the Court is of the opinion that there will be a gross miscarriage of justice, should resort be made to such powers.

7. Recently a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court had, in Priyanka Jaiswal v. State of Jharkhand 2024 SCC Online SC 685 observed that, at the time of examining the prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings, the court should neither conduct a mini trial nor enter into an appreciation of evidence. It was also observed that the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint cannot be examined on the touchstone of the probable defence that the accused may raise to stave off the prosecution. The observations in the decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Akhil Sharda, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820 that no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in the exercise of powers under S.482 CrPC was referred to in the above decision.

8. Bearing in mind the aforesaid, this Court notices that, though a solitary instance of money lending is not sufÏcient for a successful prosecution, for the offence under the Money Lending Act, in the instant case, the statements of CW1, CW2 and CW3, indicate that the materials collected by prosecution justify a prima facie case against the petitioner. However, whether those allegations are proved in the circumstances is a matter which can be decided only after adducing evidence. At this stage, it cannot be stated that the uncontroverted allegations in the final report do not make out any offence. Since, the issue required to be considered falls within the realm of disputed facts, I am of the view that, the case can be decided only after trial. Hence, this is not a fit case to interfere under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Accordingly, I dismiss this Criminal Miscellaneous Case. It is also clarifie