2021 (11) TMI 826 - HC - Indian Laws

Recovery of loan amount - Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958. - basic contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the complaint based on which Annexure-F final report filed was without any bona fides and it was intended to interfere with the on-going proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - It is well settled position that the delay in lodging the FIR, often results in embellishment and exaggeration. It exposes the danger of introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, and thus casting a very serious doubt on its veracity. In such circumstances, the explanation for such huge delay was insisted upon and in the absence of which, the case can be quashed. It is true that the invocation of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be sparingly used in rare cases. Therefore, the exercise that should be performed before invoking the said jurisdiction, is to look carefully all the aspects of the case and to verify whether the case at hand is fit for invoking the powers under the said provision - No documents are also seen produced to substantiate, either availing of the loan in the year 2006 or repayment thereof. The aforesaid aspects coupled with long delay occurred in the initiation of the proceedings, which is much after the petitioners have initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, shatters the case advanced by the prosecution. From the aforesaid materials, the irresistible conclusion possible is that, the entire proceedings of submission of the complaint, filing of Annexure-F charge sheet and all further proceedings are clear abuse of process of law. The chances for successful prosecution based on Annexure-F charge sheet is very bleak particularly because of the fact that it lacks any specific material particulars in support of the allegations and the offences alleged. The petitioners are entitled to succeed - Petition allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Invocation of Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the final report and proceedings.
2. Allegations under Sections 420 and 506(i) IPC.
3. Allegations under Sections 13 and 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958.
4. Delay in lodging the FIR and its implications.
5. Bona fides of the complaint and its timing concerning the ongoing proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Invocation of Section 482 Cr.P.C. to Quash the Final Report and Proceedings:
The petitioners sought the invocation of the High Court's powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to quash Annexure-F final report and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 1339/2015. The court examined the circumstances and found that the case advanced by the prosecution lacked specific material particulars and was an abuse of process of law. The court concluded that the petitioners were entitled to succeed, and thus, quashed Annexure-F final report and all further proceedings.

2. Allegations under Sections 420 and 506(i) IPC:
The prosecution alleged that the petitioners committed offences under Sections 420 (cheating) and 506(i) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioners contended that the allegations were vague and lacked specificity. The court noted that the alleged threat occurred in January 2013, but the complaint was filed only on 14.2.2015, after a significant delay. The court found the allegations vague and unsupported by any documents, leading to the conclusion that the case lacked merit.

3. Allegations under Sections 13 and 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958:
The petitioners were also charged under Sections 13 (penalty for molestation of the debtor) and 17 (unlicensed money lending) of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958. The petitioners argued that the charge under Section 17 was not applicable as the charge sheet itself mentioned that the accused had a license under the Money Lenders Act. Regarding Section 13, the court found the allegations vague and unsupported by evidence, leading to the conclusion that no prima facie case was made out.

4. Delay in Lodging the FIR and Its Implications:
The court emphasized the significant delay in lodging the FIR, which often results in embellishment and exaggeration. The alleged threat occurred in January 2013, but the complaint was filed only on 14.2.2015. The court found no satisfactory explanation for the delay, leading to doubts about the veracity of the allegations. Citing precedents, the court noted that such delays cast serious doubt on the prosecution's case and justified quashing the proceedings.

5. Bona Fides of the Complaint and Its Timing Concerning the Ongoing Proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioners argued that the complaint was filed with mala fide intentions to interfere with the ongoing proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court scrutinized the timing and nature of the complaint and found that it was filed after significant delays and lacked specific material particulars. The court concluded that the complaint and subsequent proceedings were an abuse of process and aimed at defeating the ongoing legal proceedings initiated by the petitioners.

Conclusion:
The court found that the allegations were vague, unsupported by evidence, and filed after significant delays without satisfactory explanation. The proceedings were deemed an abuse of process, and the court quashed Annexure-F final report and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 1339/2015. The Crl.M.C. was allowed, providing relief to the petitioners.

← Previous Next →