A solitary transaction does not equate to being a money lender; consistent business practice is required for such classification.

O R D E R

Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.30 of 2012 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kollam, based on Annexure- A1 Final Report in Crime No.1086 of 2010 of the East Police Station, Kollam, for the offences under Sections 13 and 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders' Act . The allegation against the petitioner is that he has conducted money lending without licence.

2. Even Annexure-A1 reveals that the petitioner had obtained an agreement for sale of a property form the defacto complainant. It has come out that the petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement before the Civil Court and the same is pending.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the defacto complainant had filed Annexure-A3 caveat before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kollam expecting the suit. It has not been stated in Annexure-A3 that the petitioner was a money lender. The specific averments in Annexure-A3 is that the defacto complainant had willingly entered into an agreement for sale of his property with the petitioner and even after repeated requests and demands, the petitioner had not cared to perform his part of the agreement and thereby, the period of agreement was over.

4. Even if there is a single instance of money lending is there, it will not make such a person, a money lender. There is absolutely nothing to show that the petitioner has conducted money lending business apart from entering in an agreement for sale. Matters being so, all further proceedings in C.C.No.30 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kollam, as against the petitioner, are liable to be quashed.

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings in C.C.No.30 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kollam, as against the petitioner, are hereby quashed.