O R D E R

The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.271 of

2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimali. The aforesaid case arises from Crime No.244 of 2018 of Rajakkad Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and Section 3 read with Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that, the de facto complainant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitioner herein for the purpose of construction of his house, for which the petitioner collected huge amounts as interest. It was also alleged that, at the time of giving the amount, certain blank cheques and two stamp papers signed by the de facto complainant were obtained by the petitioner. It was also alleged that, even though Rs.1,43,000/- has been re-payed by the de facto complainant the petitioner herein refused to return the aforesaid blank cheques and documents by demanding huge amounts. Later, he filled up the blank cheque for Rs.93,000/-. On the basis of the same, he has threatened the de facto complainant with the legal proceedings against him. The aforesaid complaint was submitted in such circumstances. This Crl.M.C. is filed for an order quashing the aforesaid Annexure-A1 final report submitted by the police in respect of the aforesaid crime. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate as C.C.No.271 of 2019.

2. Heard Sri.C.S.Manilal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Aravind V.Mathew, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.S.Jiji, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, the transaction between the parties are civil in nature and no offence under Section 420 IPC is attracted. It is a case where the de facto complainant had borrowed some amount from the petitioner. From the materials available, no intention to cheat the de facto complainant right from the inception can be found. As regards to the offences under Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, it was pointed out that, nowhere in the final report or the statements of the witnesses, it is mentioned that the petitioner is conducting a business of money lending. Only a single transaction has been mentioned herein, which cannot be treated as a money lending business under Section

17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act.

4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would oppose the said contention of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent vehemently opposes the contention that the question whether there was misuse of cheque collected from the de facto complainant is a question of fact which has to be examined during the course of trial and it is not a fit case to invoke the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is to be invoked.

5. The only question that arises is whether any materials are available on record to constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner herein. As regard to the offence alleged under Section 3 read with Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, it can be seen that the aforesaid provision applicable in cases where the accused carries business of money lending without licence. One of the basic requirements for attracting the said offence is that the accused must have been engaged in the business of money lending. Sub Section 7 of Section 2 defines money lending, which reads as follows:

“(7).“money-lender” means a person whose main or subsidiary occupation is the business of advancing and realising loans or acceptance of deposits in the course of such business and includes any person appointed by him to be in charge of a branch office or branch offices or a liaison office or any other office by whatever name called, of his principal place of business and a pawn broker, but does not include―”

(a) a bank or a co-operative society; or (b) the Life insurance Corporation of India established under section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1