The court upheld the importance of valid documentation in money-lending disputes and clarified the limits of inherent powers in criminal proceedings.

ORDER Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.398 of 2025 registered at the Pallikkathodu Police Station for the offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS and Section 17 of the Kerala Money-lenders Act . The crime is registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the 2^nd respondent alleging that he had pledged his wife’s pick-up van bearing registration No. KL-33- F-292 having a value of Rs.3,25,000/- to the petitioner as security, while borrowing an amount of Rs.45,000/- for a period of three months.

2. It is alleged that the complainant later approached the petitioner for repaying of the borrowed amount with interest, but the petitioner refused to return the vehicle, and on enquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner had dismantled and sold the pick-up van.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence under Section 17 of the Money-lenders Act is in no way attracted, since the petitioner is doing money lending business on the strength of Annexure 5 licence issued by the Competent Authority. It is further contended that the offence under Section 318(4) of BNS is also not attracted as there is no material to show that the vehicle in question was mortgaged as security with the petitioner. On the other hand, the frivolous allegation was raised by the 2^nd respondent on 24.04.2025, after being served with Annexure 3 notice dated 21.04.2025. To buttress the argument, reference is also made to paragraph 6 of Annexure 4 order, by which the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail.

4. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

5. The 2^nd respondent has not appeared despite service of notice.

6. In the light of Annexure 5 licence, it is doubtful whether the offence under Section 17 of the Money- lenders Act is attracted against the petitioner. This is an aspect which the Investigating Officer should take into consideration. As far as the offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS is concerned, in view of the instructions received by the Public Prosecutor that the vehicle was dismantled and sold, this Court cannot, in exercise of the inherent power, quash the proceedings. Needless to say, the absence of a mortgage agreement and issuance of Annexure 3 notice by the petitioner are aspects to be taken into account by the Investigating Officer.

The Crl.M.C. is accordingly closed, with the above observations and leaving it open for the petitioner to challenge the final report, if so warranted.