To constitute an offence under the Money Lenders Act, there must be a demonstration of continuous business activity, not merely a single instance of money lending.

ORDER

Dated this the 21^st day of January, 2026 The petitioners who are the accused persons in C.C.No.89/2023 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta, arising out of Crime No.1049 of 2013 of Pathanamthitta police station filed this petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying for quashing all further proceedings against them. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 13 r/w 17 of the Money Lenders Act and Section 4 of Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act .

2. The prosecution case is that the accused without any authorization conducted money lending business, advanced a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to CW1 and inspite repaying, a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- refused to return the cheque leaves received as security and thereby they are alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, even if the entire allegations raised against the petitioners are believed, the offences as alleged against them is not attracted in this case. Therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioners.

4. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. In this case the only allegation is that the petitioners advanced a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the defacto complainant after receiving cheque leaves as security and then refused to return the security document inspite of repayment of the loan amount with interest.

6. Relying upon the decision of this Court inVimal v. State of Kerala [ 2015 (1) KLT 524 ] andSasidharan v. Sub Inspector [2023 (1) KLT 251], the learned counsel would argue that unless there is evidence to show that the petitioners were engaged in money lending business with series of money transactions, the offence will not be attracted. In the decision in Vimal (supra) this court held that "A prosecution under S. 18 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act , 1958 is sought to be quashed under S.482 of the Crl.P.C. The crime in this case was registered suo motu by the police on the basis of seizure of some cheques from the possession of the petitioner herein. The grievance of the petitioner is that these cheques were not, in fact, received by him in money lending business. He seeks orders quashing the prosecution on the ground that such a prosecution will be a sheer abuse of legal process. On a perusal of the entire prosecution records including the FIR and the final report, I find that the prosecution does not have any material to show that the petitioner herein was found involving in any money lending business. What is made punishable under the is involvement in money lending business. Thus, the prosecution will have to prove some sort of business in money lending for a successful prosecution. The mere fact that the accused was found in possession of some cheque leaves or some other documents will not prove a business transaction. Lending money to a person under one or more documents will not by itself constitute the offence of unauthorised money lending meant under the . Pending the proceedings, I directed the police to report whether any other material or document, than those seized by the police at the first instance were seized or recovered during investigation. The report is nil. This means that the dispute between the maker of the negotiable instruments and the petitioner herein is purely personal in nature. This dispute does not involve any public interest or public issue to attract the penal provisions of the , Maker of the negotiable instruments has now come to terms with the accused amicably, and has filed affidavit to the effect that he has no complaint or g