Kerala High Court
Hareesh vs The State Of Kerala on 25 September, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Crl.M.C. No.5294 of 2018
1
2024:KER:71470
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 3RD ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 5294 OF 2018
CRIME NO.420/2016 OF VENGARA POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1727
OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
HAREESH
S/O.BHARATHAN, AGED 37 YERS, KADAVATH
HOUSE, JAWAVAN COLONY, KANNATTIPADI P.O.,
VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI - 682 031 - FOR THE SUB INSPECTOR OF
POLICE, VENGARA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT.
2 ABDUL JALEEL.T.V.
S/O.KUNHEETHUTTY, THEKKEVEETTIL HOUSE,
MUTHUVILKUNDU,CHEROOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676 304.
Crl.M.C. No.5294 of 2018
2
2024:KER:71470
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.AJAKUMAR -
SRI.SIDHARTH A.MENON
SRI.SANAL.P.RAJ, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C. No.5294 of 2018
3
2024:KER:71470
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.5294 of 2018
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2024
ORDER
Petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.
No.1727/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Malappuram arising from Crime
No.420/2016 of Vengara Police Station. The above
case is charge sheeted against the petitioner
alleging offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and
17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 and
Section 506(i) IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner
gave a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the defacto
complainant at a place called Vengara in
Malappuram district and it is complained that the
2024:KER:71470
petitioner intimidated the defacto complainant
demanding money despite of discharging the
liability. Annexure A is the final report. According
to the petitioner, even if the entire allegations are
accepted, no offence is made out.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the
2nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that, even if the entire allegations are
accepted there is only a single instance of lending
money which will not attract the offence under the
Kerala Money Lenders Act. The counsel relied on
the judgments of this Court in Vimal v. State of
Kerala and Others [2015 (1) KLT 524] and Kurian
V. V. v. Leelamma Sebastian and Another [2015
(4) KLT 476]. The counsel also submitted that, even
2024:KER:71470
if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence
under Section 506(i) IPC is also attracted.
5. The counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent and the Public Prosecutor submitted that
the contentions of the petitioner are to be raised
before the trial court at the appropriate stage and
this Court may not interfere with the prosecution
invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. This Court considered the contentions of
the petitioner and the respondents. The allegation
in Annexure A final report is like this:
"Charge u/s 506 (I) IPC & 3, 4, 17 of KML Act
ഇതതിലലെ പ്രതതി നതിലെവതിലലെ നതിയമതതിനന് വതിരുദ്ധമമായതി
ലലെസൻസന് വമാങമാലത 2011 വർഷതതിൽ ഇതതിലലെ 1-)o
സമാകതികന് വവങര എന്ന സ്ഥലെതന് ലവചന് 5 ലെകക്ഷം രൂപ
പലെതിശകന് നൽകുകയക്ഷം ഇതതിലലെ 1-)o സമാകതി ടതി മുതലക്ഷം
ആയതതിനുള്ള പലെതിശയക്ഷം നൽകതിയതതിനന് വശഷവക്ഷം
2024:KER:71470
മുതലെതിവലെകക്ഷം പലെതിശയതിവലെകക്ഷം പണക്ഷം ആവശശ്യലപ്പെടന് 1-)o
സമാകതിലയ ഭഭീഷണതിലപ്പെടുതതിയതിരതികയമാലക്ഷം പ്രതതി
വമൽവകുപ്പുകൾ പ്രകമാരക്ഷം ശതികമാർഹമമായ കുറക്ഷം
ലചെയതിരതികന."
7. The question to be decided is whether the
offence under the Kerala Money Lenders Act and the
offence under Section 506(i) IPC is made out in the
facts and circumstances of this case. In Vimal's
case (supra), this Court considered the same
question. It will be better to extract the relevant
portion of the above judgment:
"1. A prosecution under S.18 of the Kerala
Money Lenders Act, 1958 is sought to be quashed
under S.482 of the Crl. P. C. The crime in this case
was registered suo motu by the police on the basis
of seizure of some cheques from the possession of
the petitioner herein. The grievance of the
petitioner is that these cheques were not, in fact,
received by him in money lending business. He
seeks orders quashing the prosecution on the
2024:KER:71470
ground that such a prosecution will be a sheer
abuse of legal process. On a perusal of the entire
prosecution records including the FIR and the final
report, I find that the prosecution does not have
any material to show that the petitioner herein was
found involving in any money lending business.
What is made punishable under the Kerala Money
Lenders Act is involvement in money lending
business. Thus, the prosecution will have to prove
some sort of business in money lending for a
successful prosecution. The mere fact that the
accused was found in possession of some cheque
leaves or some other documents will not prove a
business transaction. Lending money to a person
under one or more documents will not by itself
constitute the offence of unauthorised money
lending meant under the Kerala Money Lenders Act.
Pending the proceedings, I directed the police to
report whether any other material or document,
than those seized by the police at the first instance
were seized or recovered during investigation. The
report is nil. This means that the dispute between
the maker of the negotiable instruments and the
petitioner herein is purely personal in nature. This
dispute does not involve any public interest or
public issue to attract the penal provisions of the
2024:KER:71470
Kerala Money Lenders Act. Maker of the negotiable
instruments has now come to terms with the
accused amicably, and has filed affidavit to the
effect that he has no complaint or grievance. In the
above circumstances, I find that this prosecution
will be sheer abuse of legal process. No doubt, the
prosecution cannot reach anywhere with the
materials at hand. In the above situation, the
prosecution can be quashed to save the precise
time of the Court.
2. In the result, the petition is allowed. The
prosecution against the petitioner in S.T.No.
1466/2013 of the Judicial First class Magistrate
Court - I, Cherthala, will stand quashed under
S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly,
the petitioner will stand released from prosecution,
and the bail bond, if any, executed by him will
stand discharged."
8. In V.V. Kurian's case (supra), this Court
again considered the same point. It will be better to
extract the relevant portion of the above judgment:
"4. I find that the petitioner herein cannot be
said to be a money lender as defined under the
law, and he cannot be prosecuted under the Kerala
2024:KER:71470
Money Lenders Act, just because he happened to
lend an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs on one occasion to
the defacto complainant. It appears that this has
been the trend in Kerala, that even on a complaint
alleging just one instance of money lending as part
of a private affair between individuals, the police
would register crime under the Kerala Money
Lenders Act, and without obtaining any advice from
anybody, the police would mechanically submit final
report under the Kerala Money Lenders Act. This
will have consequences, and such a prosecution
where the accused will not satisfy the definition of
"money lender" under the law, will definitely
amount to abuse of legal process. "
9. In the light of the above principles, this
Court perused the final report. Admittedly, only a
single instance of money lending is mentioned in the
final report. That will not attract the offence under
the Kerala Money Lenders Act in the light of the
dictum laid down by this Court.
10. The next question to be decided is
whether the offence under Section 506(i) IPC is
2024:KER:71470
made out. The Apex Court considered the
ingredients of Section 506(i) in detail in Manik
Taneja and anr. v. State of Karnataka and anr.
[2015 KHC 4046]. The relevant portion of the
above judgment is extracted hereunder:
"13. S.506 IPC prescribes punishment for
the offence of criminal intimidation.
"Criminal intimidation" as defined in S.503
IPC is as under:
"503. Criminal Intimidation.-- Whoever
threatens another with any injury to his
person, reputation or property, or to the
person or reputation of any one in whom
that person is interested, with intent to
cause alarm to that person, or to cause that
person to do any act which he is not legally
bound to do, or to omit to do any act which
that person is legally entitled to do, as the
means of avoiding the execution of such
threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation.-- A threat to injure the
reputation of any deceased person in whom
the person threatened is interested, is
2024:KER:71470
within this section."
14. A reading of the definition of "Criminal
intimidation" would indicate that there must
be an act of threatening to another person,
of causing an injury to the person,
reputation, or property of the person
threatened, or to the person in whom the
threatened person is interested and the
threat must be with the intent to cause
alarm to the person threatened or it must
be to do any act which he is not legally
bound to do or omit to do an act which he is
legally entitled to do.
15. In the instant case, the allegation is
that the appellants have abused the
complainant and obstructed the second
respondent from discharging his public
duties and spoiled the integrity of the
second respondent. It is the intention of the
accused that has to be considered in
deciding as to whether what he has stated
comes within the meaning of "Criminal
intimidation". The threat must be with
intention to cause alarm to the complainant
to cause that person to do or omit to do any
work. Mere expression of any words without
2024:KER:71470
any intention to cause alarm would not be
sufficient to bring in the application of this
section. But material has to be placed on
record to show that the intention is to cause
alarm to the complainant. From the facts
and circumstances of the case, it appears
that there was no intention on the part of
the appellants to cause alarm in the minds
of the second respondent causing
obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far
as the comments posted on the Facebook
are concerned, it appears that it is a public
forum meant for helping the public and the
act of appellants posting a comment on the
Facebook may not attract ingredients of
criminal intimidation in S.503 IPC."
(underline supplied)
11. In the light of the above principle, this
Court perused the allegation in the final report as
far the offence under Section 506(i) IPC is
concerned. I am of the considered opinion that,
even if the entire allegations are accepted, no
2024:KER:71470
offence under Section 506(i) IPC is made out in the
facts and circumstances of this case.
Upshot of the above discussion is that the
continuation of the prosecution against the
petitioner is an abuse of process of court.
Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is
allowed. All further proceedings against the
petitioner in C.C. No.1727/2017 on the file of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram
arising from Crime No.420/2016 of Vengara Police
Station are quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
DM JUDGE
2024:KER:71470
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL
REPORT/CHARGE IN CRIME NO.420/2016
OF THE VENGARA POLICE STATION.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE
