The court affirmed the threshold for quashing proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing that mere allegations must be substantiated by evidence to warrant dismissal.

ORDER

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.8/2022 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad, which has originated from Crime No.1392/2021 registered by the Palakkad Town South Police Station, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , Sections 3 and 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 and Section 3 and 9(a)(b)(iii) of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012 .

2. The petitioners have filed the criminal miscellaneous case to quash the final report and all further proceedings in the above case on the assertion that the allegations in the final report do not attract the offences alleged against the petitioners.

3. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that, the petitioners had advanced money to the 3^rd respondent (defacto complainant) without the requisite statutory licenses by charging exorbitant interest above the rates fixed by the Government. They also threatened the 3^rd respondent.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, even if the allegations in the final report are taken on their face value, the same would not attract the offences alleged against the petitioners. There is no evidence to prove that the petitioners were conducting money lending business and had demanded exorbitant interest from the 3^rd respondent. In fact, the 3^rd respondent had taken a personal loan from the petitioners, but failed to return the amount. It is only to prevent the petitioners from the recovering the money from the 3^rd respondent that he has deliberately got the present crime got registered. Therefore, the entire proceedings may be quashed.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the Crl.M.C. He submits that there are substantial materials to prove the petitioners’ culpability in the crime. If the allegations in the final report are taken on their face value, the same would attract the offences alleged against the petitioners. The prosecution proposes to examine witnesses and produce materials which will establish that the petitioners have committed the offences. This Court may not embark upon a mini trial and conclude that the petitioners have not committed the above offences. Hence, the Crl.M.C may be dismissed.

7. The gist of the prosecution allegation is that, the petitioners had advanced money to the 3^rd respondent on interest without the statutory licenses and permissions. Thus, the petitioners have committed the above offences.

8. On going through the allegations in Annexure 2 final report and materials on record, I find that there are specific allegations attributed against the petitioners that they had lend money to the 3^rd respondent , without the statutory license, on interest. It is seen that the prosecution proposes to examine 29 witnesses and have produced materials.

9. In the celebrated decision in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down exhaustive principles to quash a criminal proceeding. The salient principle is that, if the allegations in the complaint do not attract the offence; then the the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised.

10. After bestowing anxious consideration of the facts and the materials on record, and the rival submission made across the Bar, and also, the fact that, though the Crl.M.C was filed on 26.05.2022 and this Court has not admitted the case and no interim order has been passed. Hence, I am satisfied this is not a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 48