VARGHESE KURIAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are husband and wife implicated as accused in Crime No.532/2014 of Edathwa Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC and also under Section 3 read with Section 17 of the Kerala Money-Lenders Act, 1958 and under Section 9(a) of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012 [' Interest Act ', for short]. The crime was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the second respondent herein and his wife to the Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha, produced here as part of Annexure-1. After investigation, final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ambalappuzha and taken cognizance of as CC No.3500/2014.

(2.) The facts in the complaint and the final report filed by the prosecution in brief are thus:

(3.) The petitioners would contend that they had purchased the properties from the defacto complainant in the years 2003, 2004 and 2006 for valuable consideration, mutation was effected, and possession handed over to them. The fact that the petitioners sold a portion of the property for higher consideration is admitted. The defacto complainant got jealous because the property was sold for a higher sale consideration, which was due to escalation of land value in that area, in passage of time. The petitioners were implicated in a false case after a long lapse of 12 years of purchasing the land. The petitioners would contend that the inordinate delay in initiating proceedings itself would indicate the mala fide intention of the defacto complainant in filing the complaint. The petitioners would also contend that the prosecution is barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.PC, and going by the accusations made against the petitioners in the complaint and the final report, no offence under Section 420 IPC is attracted, much less an offence under Section 3 read with Section 17 of the Kerala Money-Lenders Act, 1958 or the offence under the Interest Act . The learned counsel for the petitioners also points out that the Interest Act came into force only in 2012 and has no retrospective effect. The petitioners therefore seek quashing the entire proceedings against them under Section 482 Cr.PC.