The proceedings in C.C.No.1035 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur are sought to be quashed by the petitioner

herein, who is the sole accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution allegation is that on 09.07.2015 at about 10.15 a.m.,

the Sub Inspector of Police, Kunnikode Police Station, conducted a search in the

house of the petitioner. In the course of search, a cheque bearing

No.’30440275335’ dated 10.02.2014 signed by one P.R.Sreelekha and a tax

receipt were seized. A search list was prepared and immediately thereafter,

Crime No.1031 of 2015 of the Kunnikode Police Station was suo motu registered

under Sections 3 and 4 read with Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act.

The same officer conducted the entire investigation and after completing the

same, final report was laid before the learned Magistrate, where the case was

taken on file as C.C.No.1035 of 2015.

3.

The specific case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was

engaged in money lending activities without a licence.

4. According to the learned counsel, the institution of criminal

proceedings is clearly an abuse of process. He would contend that the petitioner

is the de facto complainant in S.T.No.6 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur, which proceeding has been initiated by him

3

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused in the said

case is none other than the 2^nd respondent herein. The said complaint was filed

when the cheque issued by the de facto complainant in his favour was

dishonoured. After the filing of the complaint, the original of the cheque was

handed over back to the petitioner herein by the court for presentment at the

time of trial and the same was retained by him in his residential home. Later, at

the instance of the 2^nd respondent, much after filing of the complaint on

01.04.2014, a search was conducted in the house of the petitioner on

09.07.2015 and the cheque was seized.

5. Notice was issued to the 2^nd respondent and the counsel entered

appearance. Heard the learned counsel as well.

6. From the records, it appears that the petitioner herein lodged a

complaint consequent to the dishonour of the cheque issued by the 2^nd

respondent before the learned Magistrate. The said complaint was lodged on

01.04.2014. Annexure-B complaint lodged by the petitioner clearly shows that

the 2^nd respondent had issued cheque No.016248 drawn at the State Bank of

India, Kottarakkara Branch for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and the same is dated

10.02.2014. The very same cheque was seized by the investigating officer

consequent to the search, which was conducted in the house of the petitioner

herein on 09.07.2015. The specific contention of the learned counsel appearing

4

for the petitioner is that the original of the cheque was returned to him for

production at the time of evidence. In the case on hand, it is only on account of

the seizure of a single solitary cheque from the possession of the petitioner that

the crime has been registered and the final report has been laid. By no stretch

of imagination, the offences under Sections 3 and 4 read with Section 17 of the

Kerala Money Lenders Act will be attracted against the petitioner.

7.

It is by now settled that the powers possessed by this Court under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are very wide and the very plenitude of the power

requires great caution in its exercise. However, if on appreciation of the final

report as a whole and if it appears that the ingredients of the offence are absent

and that the continuance of proceedings will only result in abuse of process, this

Court will be well justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its inherent

powers. Having gone through the entire materials, I am of the considered view

that the initiation of prosecution proceedings against the petitioner herein cannot

be regarded as a legitimate exercise. None