GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first accused in C.C.No.3510/2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor, has filed this petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in the said case.

(2.) The genesis of the case is from an F.I.R registered by the Pandalam Police on the basis of a complaint filed by the second respondent (defacto complainant), who alleged that the first accused cheated her by executing a sale deed in respect of the property of the defacto complainant in favour of the second accused, the employee of the first accused, by fraudulently and dishonestly inducing her to believe that it was only a pledge deed executed as security for the loan of Rs.5,00,000.00 advanced to the defacto complainant. It is the further allegation of the defacto complainant that the first accused obtained 13 signed blank cheque leaves of her and her husband on 11/4/2014 when the transactions took place. The defacto complainant also alleged that the first accused collected unconscionable interest of Rs.50,000.00 per month for the above amount advanced to her and threatened her when she defaulted the payment of interest after December, 2015, that the property would be sold to others unless the arrears of interest are cleared. According to the defacto complainant, she got suspicious about the transaction only at that time, and that upon enquiry with the Sub Registrar's office, it was revealed that the document executed on 11/4/2014 was in fact a sale deed and not a pledge deed. The defacto complainant also contended that the first accused demanded an amount of Rs.35,00,000.00 when she requested to reconvey the property after receiving the principal amount and interest out of the loan advanced to her. The first accused was said to be having no money lender's licence at the time when the above transaction took place.

(3.) In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that he was having licence issued by the Commercial Tax Department, Government of Kerala for money lending transactions, and that the contention of the second respondent about the execution of a sale deed in favour of the second accused under the pretext of execution of a pledge deed, is totally false. According to the petitioner, the defacto complainant had clubbed two transactions to get over from the sale of the property after so many years by taking advantage of the 'Operation Kubera' action initiated against money lenders. It is further contended that the allegations in the final report do not disclose the ingredients of the offence under Sec. 420 IPC or the relevant provisions of the Kerala Money Lenders Act and the Kerala Prohibition of Charging of Exorbitant Interest Act.