Renjan vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 630 Ker

Kerala High Court

Renjan vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2026

                                                       2026:KER:5167


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR

  WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 1ST MAGHA, 1947

                   CRL.MC NO. 9793 OF 2025

    CRIME NO.1049/2013 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION,
 PATHANAMTHITTA AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.89
     OF 2023 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

    1    RENJAN
         AGED 59 YEARS
         SON OF MUTHAYYAN CHETTIYAR, SREEMANGALAM HOUSE,
         THOTTUMPURAM, PRAKKANAM MURI, CHENNEERKARA
         VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689503

    2    SASIDHARAN
         AGED 70 YEARS
         SREEMANGALAM HOUSE, THOTTUMPURAM, PRAKKANAM MURI,
         CHENNEERKARA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
         PIN - 689503

         BY ADVS.
         SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
         SMT.KARTHIKA PEETHAMBARAN
         SMT.NEERAJA VENUGOPAL
         SHRI.ARJUN J DAS
         SMT.VINEETHA S. LAL
         SMT.VAISHNAVI M.
RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

    1    STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
         OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
                                                      2026:KER:5167
CRL.M.C.NO.9793 OF 2025

                               2

     2     SUDHA UTHAMAN
           AGED 59 YEARS
           MULAVANATHUNDIL HOUSE, PARAKODE, WEST OF
           ARUKALIKKAL, ADOOR P.O., ELAMKULAM VILLAGE,
           PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691523


OTHER PRESENT:

            SR.PP-SRI.A.VIPIN NARAYAN

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                                2026:KER:5167
CRL.M.C.NO.9793 OF 2025

                                    3

                                 ORDER

Dated this the 21st day of January, 2026

The petitioners who are the accused persons in

C.C.No.89/2023 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Pathanamthitta, arising out of Crime No.1049 of 2013 of Pathanamthitta

police station filed this petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying for

quashing all further proceedings against them. The offence alleged

against the petitioners is under Section 13 r/w 17 of the Money Lenders

Act and Section 4 of Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest

Act.

2. The prosecution case is that the accused without any

authorization conducted money lending business, advanced a sum of

Rs.3,00,000/- to CW1 and inspite repaying, a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-

refused to return the cheque leaves received as security and thereby they

are alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, even if

the entire allegations raised against the petitioners are believed, the

offences as alleged against them is not attracted in this case. Therefore, 2026:KER:5167 CRL.M.C.NO.9793 OF 2025

he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioners.

4. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned Public

Prosecutor.

5. In this case the only allegation is that the petitioners advanced a

sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the defacto complainant after receiving cheque leaves

as security and then refused to return the security document inspite of

repayment of the loan amount with interest.

6. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Vimal v. State of

Kerala [2015 (1) KLT 524] and Sasidharan v. Sub Inspector [2023 (1)

KLT 251], the learned counsel would argue that unless there is evidence to

show that the petitioners were engaged in money lending business with series

of money transactions, the offence will not be attracted. In the decision in

Vimal (supra) this court held that

"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 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 2026:KER:5167 CRL.M.C.NO.9793 OF 2025

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 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".

7. In the decision in Sasidharan (supra) this court held in

paragraphs 10 & 11 as follows:-

"10. A glance at the definition and a reference to the preamble as well as the objects of the Act reveal that what is intended to be regulated, is not a solitary instance of money lending, but a series of activity, taking the form of a business of advancing and realising loans.

2026:KER:5167 CRL.M.C.NO.9793 OF 2025

11. The term business has a significant connotation in legal parlance. A continuous or series of activity which partake the character of an occupation can be regarded as business under law. The word business is a term of wide importance and has to mean an activity carried on continuously and systematically by use of his labour or skill with a view to earn an income. The term has to be perceived from the purport of the statute and the contextual implications. De hors the contextual setting one salient feature of business is continuity. Reference can profitably be made to the various definitions of the term business as enunciated in P. Ramanatha Aiyar's "The Advanced Law Lexicon" 4th Edition. In all those definitions, continuous activity is regarded as essential to treat an activity as business."

8. Therefore, to attract the offence undrer the provisions of

Money Lenders Act, a solitary instance of activity is not enough but a

series of activity taking the form of business for advancing and realizing

loans is required.

9. The learned Public Prosecutor would argue that against the

petitioners, one more case is registered by the police. Even in that case

the requirement of Money Lenders Act to constitute the offence under

Section 13 is not made out. In the instant case, though during search

some documents were seized from the residence of the petitioners the

persons who allegedly executed those documents were not even cited as

in witnesses.

2026:KER:5167 CRL.M.C.NO.9793 OF 2025

10. In the above circumstances, it is to be held that, in this case

the prosecution could not establish that the petitioners were engaged in

money lending business and as such further proceedings against them

will only be an abuse of the process of the Court.

In the result, this Crl. M.C is allowed. All further proceedings

against the petitioner in C.C.No.89/2023 on the file of the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Pathanamthitta, arising out of Crime No.1049 of 2013 of

Pathanamthitta police station, stands quashed under Section 528 of

B.N.S.S.

Sd/-

                                                C. PRATHEEP KUMAR,
Pvv                                                    JUDGE
                                                           2026:KER:5167
CRL.M.C.NO.9793 OF 2025



               APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 9793 OF 2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A1               CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR AND FIS IN CRIME
                          NO. 1049/2013 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE
                          STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT DATED
                          05.07.20213
ANNEXURE A2               CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SEARCH LIST DATED
                          30/7/2013 IN CRIME NO. 1049/2013 OF
                          PATHANAMTHITTA       POLICE      STATION,
                          PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
ANNEXURE A3               CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SEARCH MEMORANDUM
                          DATED 30/7/2013 IN CRIME NO. 1049/2013 OF
                          PATHANAMTHITTA       POLICE      STATION,
                          PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
ANNEXURE A4               CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN C.C.
                          NO. 89/2023 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
                          COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 06.07.2012