BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 15.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4515 of 2024

and

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.3547 of 2024

1.Anwar Ali

2.Mohammed Muneef

3.Mohammed Thowfeek

4.Shahul Hameed

5.Mehar Banu ... Petitioners

Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police,

Colachel Police Station,

Kanyakumari District.

(Cr.No.34 of 2024)

2.Ratheesh ... Respondents

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records in crime No.34 of 2024 on the file

of the 1^st respondent police and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Narayana Kumar For R-1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh,

Government Advocate (Crl. side)

For R-2 : Mr.S.Sivakumar

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to call for the records relating to Crime No.34 of 2024 dated 21.02.2024 on the file of the first respondent police and to quash the same as against the petitioners.

Preface:

2. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is intended to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. Though the power is extraordinary and is to be exercised sparingly, this Court is duty bound to interfere where criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide, where the dispute is purely civil in nature, or where the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are conspicuously absent on the face of the First Information Report.

3. The present case presents yet another instance where a civil dispute arising out of a loan transaction is sought to be converted into a criminal prosecution by implicating not only the principal borrower but also his entire family, thereby subjecting them to unnecessary criminal harassment.

Case of the prosecution:

4. The case of the prosecution, as borne out from the First Information Report in Crime No.34 of 2024, is that the de facto complainant and the first accused were known to each other. It is alleged that on 20.09.2020, Accused Nos.1 to 3 approached the de facto complainant and availed a loan of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) for business purposes by executing a promissory note, with an assurance to repay the same within six months.

5. It is further alleged that Accused Nos.4 and 5 had signed the promissory note as witnesses. According to the prosecution, despite repeated demands, the amount was not repaid. A police complaint was stated to have been given, pursuant to which an undertaking was allegedly given by the accused to repay the amount on or before

04.11.2022.

6. It is the further allegation that the accused failed to honour the undertaking and, upon subsequent demands, they allegedly threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequences. Since no action was allegedly taken by the police, the de facto complainant approached the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, by filing a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973, based on which the impugned FIR came to be registered for the offences under Sections

147, 120(B), 420, 294(b) and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code.

Case of the petitioners:

7. The petitioners contend that the entire prosecution is an abuse of process of law. According to them, there was indeed a loan transaction between the first petitioner and the de facto complainant, which was duly repaid in full. It is submitted that after repayment of the principal amount, the de facto complainant demanded exorbitant and unlawful interest and, upon refusal, began harassing the entire family. The second and third petitioners are the sons of the first petitioner; the fourth petitioner is his brother; and the fifth petitioner is his wife. Except for the first petitioner, none of the other petitioners had any role in the alleged loan transaction. It is specifically contended that the petitioners have been arrayed as accused only to exert pressure and to convert the police machinery into a recovery forum, which is impermissible in l