K.J.CHACKOCHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the petitioner who is the accused in Crime No.647 of 2014 of Puthancruz Police Station seeking certain relief in respect of the case under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) IT is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is a senior citizen and retired conductor from Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. Petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused in Crime No.647 of 2014 of Puthancruz Police Station alleging offences under Section 420 and 468 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 read with Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act 1958. The allegation of the prosecution was that without any license or authority and with an intention to achieve exorbitant profit, petitioner advanced loans after collecting cheque books, promissory notes, registration certificates of vehicles, title deeds etc. On the basis of the information received, the Puthencruz Police had conducted a search in the house of the petitioner on 18.5.2014 at 12.00 noon and seized the above documents as part of operation Kubera. All these transactions were already over and no amount is due to the petitioner, but unfortunately when the loan transactions were closed, the blank cheques and promissory notes entrusted with the petitioner were not collected by the respective persons as they have confidence in the petitioners as they will not be misused by the petitioner. After his retirement, he had advanced loans to several persons and collected blank cheques and promissory notes as security. Now, he is not conducting any business of money lending. The offences under the Money lenders Act are compoundable in nature and no inspectors have been appointed by the Government in this regard. So the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief: - "To quash annexure -A1 first information report in Crime No.647 of 2014 of Puthencruz Police Station, Ernakulam District pertaining to the alleged offence under Sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and also direct the respondent to accept the composition offered by the petitioner for the offence allegedly committed under Section 18 E of the Kerala Money lenders Act 1958 by permitting him to remit the maximum fees prescribed under the Act set aside Annexure -A2 order dated 5.2.2014 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court Kodungallur in Crl.M.P. No.13040 of 2013 in C.C.No.753 of 2011 and allow the prayer to recall the witnesses of PWs 1 -3 by allowing this petition." 3. On the basis of the allegations, the S.I. Of Puthancruz Police Station has filed a statement which reads as follows: The above Criminal MC was filed by K.J.Chackochan, aged 65 years, S/O. John, residing at Koottingal House, Ikkaranad North, Peringole, Kolencherry, Ernakulam with a prayer to quash the FIR in Crime No.647/2014 of Puthencruz Police Station charged under section 3 and 17 of Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 in which the petitioner is arrayed as the sole accused. 2. I, the Sub Inspector of Police, Puthencruz Police Station is the investigating Officer in the above crime and I am humbly submitting herewith the following statement of facts before the Court since I am conversant with the facts of the case. 3. The gist of the case is that the petitioner herein without any license or authority and with intention to achieve exorbitant profit, lended money illegally at an exorbitant interest rate to several persons after collecting blank cheques, blank pronotes, stamp papers, RC books, title deeds from the borrowers as securities and cheated them by using forged documents of the securities such as Blank Cheque, Blank Pronotes and Blank stamp papers etc. Puthencruz police searched the residence of the petitioner herein on 18.5.2014 and seized 103 blank cheques, 38 blank stamp papers, 27 white papers with stamp, 3 land registration deeds, 3 land sale agreements, 3 RC books, 21 Blank signed white papers without stamp etc. On the basis of the raid a case has been registered under Section 3 R/w 17 of Kerala Money Lenders Act and u/s 420, 468 of IPC. 4. During the course of investigation 11 witnesses were questioned and their statements were taken. The investigation reveals that the petitioner herein has been conducting money lending business for a decade on exorbitant interest rate. He normally collected interest at a rate of 30% to 70% per annum. He has earned a lot of money and acquired lot of property from this business. It is also revealed that the majority of the assets acquired by the petitioner were by conducting the illegal money lending business. 5. The allegation raised by the petitioner herein that the documents seized are out dated and invalid is baseless. As per the statements given by bank authorities, the cheques are valid and it can be used for withdrawing money if the account has sufficient money. 6. It is again submitted that the investigation of the case is only at a primary stage. Since the investigation reveals that he is charging exorbitant interest is a clear violation of section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act 2012 (KPCEI Act 2012). Majority of the documents seized are blank and which bears only signature of the borrowers. The police could not trace out more witnesses in this case. For this purpose the arest and custodial interrogation of the accused is necessary. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it is humbly submitted that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner as it is devoid of any merits." 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is true that the petitioner has conducted some money lending business long ago and he is not now continuing that business. Certain documents obtained as security at that time, though the transactions were closed were not taken by the parties and he has no intention to use the same. He is prepared to compound the offence as well. 6. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that since it is in the investigation stage, the prayer in the petition cannot be accepted. He may be directed to co -operate with the investigation. 7. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the search conducted by the Puthancruz Police, certain documents like blank cheques, registration books of the vehicles, title deed of the properties and promissory notes were seized from the possession of the petitioner kept in his house. As on that basis the above case was also registered against him. Admittedly, now the petitioner has conducting money lending business earlier without any documents. However, the investigation is in the preliminary stage and it is also mentioned in the statement that the act of the petitioner will come under Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act 2012 and they will have to question the witnesses regarding this aspect and the investigation is still in progress. So, the co -operation of the petitioner is required on this aspect. So, under the circumstances, this Court feels that the petitioner is not entitled to get the reliefs claimed in the petition at present and if at all, ultimately final report is field, he can move the appropriate forums for quashing the proceedings and also quash the proceedings on the ground of composition and at that that time appropriate court can consider those aspects. Further, the petitioner is directed to co -operate with the investigating officer and if he received notice under Section 41 A and 160 Code of Criminal Procedure to appear before them for the purpose of interrogation, then the petitioner is directed to appear and co -operate with them and if the investigating officer feels that his arrest is required, then if he arrested him he will have to produce him before the concerned court on the same day and if the petitioner applies for bail before that court, then the court can consider and dispose of the bail application on the same day itself. The undertaking given by the counsel for the petitioner that he will not do money lending business and misuse the document for any purpose can also be considered by the court at the time of considering the bail application if any filed by the petitioner. With the above direction and observation, the petition is disposed of.