IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933 CRL.MC.NO. 1589 OF 2011() --------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.108 OF 2011 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- C.S.SHAJIL KUMAR, SON OF SHANMUGAN, AGED 34 YEARS, CHETTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, THYKOODAM, VYTTILA P.O., KOCHI-682019, POONITHURA VILLAGE AT KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN SRI.P.M.SAJI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PANANGAD POLICE STATION, PANANGAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. MOHAMMED, S/O.M.A.IBRAHIM, RESIDING AT MANATH VADAKKE PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, THRIKKAKARA P.O., KAKKANADU, KOCHI-21. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.1589 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 06th day of June, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner claims to be a money lender in whose favour Annexure-A1 licence has been issued on 28.07.2009. While so, the second respondent, his wife and children preferred Annexure-A4, compliant to the Inspector General, Central Zone. That complaint was forwarded to the Police for necessary action. The Police registered Crime No.108 of 2011 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 of the Money Lenders Act (for short, “the Act”) alleging that petitioner committed breach of trust, cheating and criminal intimidation and harassed the loanee in connection with the recovery of amount and thereby committed the offences aforesaid. Annexure-A5 is the copy of FIR. Petitioner wants to quash proceedings against him on the contention that petitioner has not committed any offence, much less any offence under the Act. Learned counsel contended that apart from the bald allegations made in Annexure-A4, complaint there is nothing to show the transaction referred to therein which second respondent CRL.M.C. No.1589 of 2011 -: 2 :- alleged. It is also submitted that allegations in Annexure-A4, complaint are not sufficient to attract even the IPC offences alleged against petitioner. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in Alpic Finance Ltd. v. P.Sadavisan and Another (AIR 2001 SC 1226 – paragraphs 5, 10), B.Suresh Yadav v. Sharifa Bee & Another (AIR 2008 SC 210 – paragraph 10), Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujrat ([2010] 8 SCC 628) and Mohanan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011 [2] KLT SN 59. Learned Public Prosecutor in response argued that the matter is under investigation and in the light of the allegations contained in Annexure-A4, complaint there is no reason to interfere. 2. The decisions in Alpic Finance Ltd. v. P. Sadasivan and Another and Mohanan v. State of Tamil Nadu refer to the necessity to have specific allegations to invite a criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court referred to the offence under Sec.306 of the IPC, etc., where question of abetment of suicide was considered and it was held that in the absence of any instigation or intentional aid to commit suicide, merely for the CRL.M.C. No.1589 of 2011 -: 3 :- reason that somebody has committed it there could be no abetment as understood in Sec.107 of the IPC. Based on the above principles I shall refer to Annexure-A4, complaint and find whether interference by this Court at this stage is required. 3. In Annexure-A4, complaint respondent No.2 and others stated that at a time when the second respondent was badly in need of money, he approached petitioner through one Muhammed, a broker and requested for a loan of `8,00,000/-. Petitioner agreed to pay the amount and demanded that a sale deed in respect of the land and house belonging to the second respondent be executed in favour of petitioner as security (for due repayment of the amount). Since second respondent had no other way he agreed for the same and accordingly as expenses for the sale deed, loan and brokerage fee `10,00,000/- was given to the second respondent. A sale deed was executed in the name of petitioner. Along with that sale deed petitioner obtained the signature of second respondent in five stamp affixed blank papers, a Fifty Rupees stamp paper and signed cheque leaves. It was understood that on payment of the amount borrowed and its interest the property will be re-conveyed to the second CRL.M.C. No.1589 of 2011 -: 4 :- respondent. Second respondent was also given a repayment card in the name of the financial institution run by the petitioner. Later petitioner wanted the tenants of the house covered by the sale deed to be evicted and for the said purpose a further sum of `6,50,000/- was given to the second respondent. At that time petitioner prepared a stamped document stating that second respondent borrowed altogether a sum of `38,00,000/-. To settle the dispute a third person was found out and a deal was arranged. There was an agreement for sale between the third person and petitioner and petitioner received `15,00,000/- by way of advance, of which `1,00,000/- was given to the second respondent. However petitioner later demanded a further sum of `24,00,000/- from the second respondent and intimidated him. Second respondent stated in Annexure-A4, complaint that petitioner was whisking away his property and money based on the signed blank stamped papers obtained as security. It is based on that compliant police registered the case. 4. I have gone through the decisions referred above. Gist of the above decisions is that if there is no sufficient plea regarding the offence alleged, it is within the power of the High CRL.M.C. No.1589 of 2011 -: 5 :- Court to interfere with the criminal proceedings. The complaint in the present case was preferred by the second respondent and his family members to the Inspector General directly. On a reading Annexure-A4, complaint what I understand is that the gist of allegation is that the understanding was that on repayment of the loan property of the second respondent will be re-conveyed. Petitioner did not did so and cheated the second respondent. 5. So far as registration of the case under Sec.13 of the Act is concerned the said provision refers to molestation of any debtor for recovery of any loan. According to the learned counsel no such offence is involved even going by Annexure-A4, complaint. I have referred to Annexure-A4, complaint where it is stated that petitioner is said to have obtained signed blank stamped papers and blank cheque leaves, etc., from the second respondent. According to learned counsel no such stamp papers were recovered from the petitioner. But that is a matter which the Investigating Officer has to look into. It is not as if allegations did not make out any offence at all so that this Court is required to interfere and quash proceedings. It is not disputed that certain jewels and money of third parties were recovered from CRL.M.C. No.1589 of 2011 -: 6 :- the petitioner in the course of investigation and those articles were returned to the petitioner. Police has to investigate into all aspects of the matter and find whether all or any of the allegations made against petitioner are correct or not. At this stage I do not find reason to interfere. Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv