O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records and quash the proceedings in the Charge sheet in C.C.No.1616 of 2015 on the file of Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore for the offence under Sections 406, 420 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act 2003 r/w 34 of the IPC were slapped against the petitioner.

2. The crux of the allegation against the petitioner is that the defacto complainant has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/- as loan from the petitioner/A1 in terms of Rs.70 lakhs repayable at Rs.3 lakhs principal and Rs.2.1 lakhs for a period of 24 months; Rs.50 lakhs of which Rs.15 lakhs was deducted towards interest and Rs.35 lakhs was disbursed to the defacto complainant on condition that it should be repaid in 10 installments of Rs.5 lakhs per month. Besides, the defacto complainant has also executed a Power of Attorney in respect of 9 acres and 15 cents (915 cents) of land in favour of A2, who is a Mediator between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant has handed over the promissory notes, cheques and blank stamp papers to the petitioner. Thereafter, the defacto complainant has paid the loan amounts in three instalments and he has not paid the remaining amount. In the meanwhile, income tax raid was conducted in the petitioner/A1 house and the defacto complainant was also summoned and examined, in which, the defacto complainant has admitted that he has to still pay a sum of Rs.95,00,000/- to the petitioner. However, on verification of the accounts, it is his contention that he is liable to pay less than Rs.95,00,000/- as per the Tamilnadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act 2003. Hence, the petitioner/A1 executed the documents on the basis of Power of Attorney. Thereby, the charge under Sections 406, 420 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act 2003 r/w

34 of the IPC were slapped against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complaint himself admitted the fact that he has executed several documents including Power of Attorney for the money payable to the accused. Therefore, merely because the documents were executed on the basis of Power of Attorney, the offence under Section 420 and 406 I.P.C would not attract. Similarly, in this case, the loan has been advanced on the basis of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1991 and Tamilnadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act 2003 will not apply. He further submitted that criminal colour has been given to civil dispute. Hence, the prosecution is nothing but abuse of process of law.

4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) submitted that the witnesses have been examined and higher rate of interest has been collected. The crux of the allegation in the final report itself shows that the money has been advanced on the basis of Negotiable Instrument act. It is relevant to note that the defacto complainant himself admitted before the Income Tax Authorities that he has to pay a sum of Rs.95,00,000/- But, as per the provisions of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act 2003, he is liable to pay less than the sum of Rs.95,00,000/-.

5. It is relevant to note that, as per Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act, 1957, “loan” means an advance, whether of money or in kind at interest, and includes any transaction which the Court finds in substance to amount to such an advance, but does not include an Advance made on the basis of a negotiable instrument as defined in the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881, exceeding Rupees ten thousand. Therefore, when the amount in the instant case has been advanced on the basis of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the question of applying Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003, does not arise at all. To apply the provisions of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Intere