Madras High Court
N.Ramamurthy vs V.M.Chandrasekaran on 27 June, 2018
Author: R.Hemalatha
Bench: R.Hemalatha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.06.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA CRL.O.P.No.30923 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 1.N.Ramamurthy 2.Kannan .. Petitioners Vs V.M.Chandrasekaran .. Respondent Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in S.T.C.No.3623 of 2012 pending on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Paramathi and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Jayaprakash For Respondent : Mr.C.D.Johnson O R D E R
The petitioners are accused in S.T.C.No.3623 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi. The respondent / complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., before the Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi against the petitioners herein for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 (2) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003.
2.In the complaint, the respondent / complainant had alleged that the petitioners herein had collected exorbitant rate of interest from him and therefore the petitioners are liable to be punished for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 (2) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003.
3.Mr.R.Jayaprakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the complaint lodged by the respondent / complainant is nothing but an abuse of process of law and that the respondent cannot maintain a complaint under Sections 4 and 5 (2) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003, since a person, who advances a loan exceeding Rs.10,000/- based on a Negotiable Instrument would not fall within the purview of Money-Lenders Act.
4.The learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Indiabulls Financial Services Limited, No.F-60, Malhotra Building, 2nd Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110 001 & another Vs. M/s.Jubilee Plots and Housing Private Limited, rep by its Managing Director, Mr.R.P.Darrmalingam No.1379, Golden Villa, 6th Street, I Block, Vallalar Kudiyeruppu, 18th Main Road, Chennai 600 040 and 2 others reported in 2010-2-L.W. 75, in which, it has been held in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 thus:
''11.Now, we will have to analyse what is kandhu vatti as defined under section 2(5) of the said Act. Kandhu vatti means an interest which will work out to an interest rate more than fixed by the Government under section 7 of the Money Lenders Act.
12.For the purpose of understanding the rate of interest fixed by the Government invoking the provision under section 7 of the Money Lenders Act, the court has to fall back on the Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act,1957. The phrase, ''a person'' referred to in section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Ex-orbitant Interest Act shall be defined with the meaning assisgned to money lenders under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act as per section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. The Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act,2003 conspicuously omits to define the phrase money lender. Instead, a prohibition of charging exorbitant interest has been imposed on a person lent loan. The said person as defined under section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act,2003 is none other than the money lender as defined under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act,1957.
13.Money Lender means a person whose main or subsidiary occupation is the business of financing and realising loans but excludes a bank or a co-operative society. A money lender is a person who is carrying on business of financing and realizing loans. Neither a bank nor a co-operative society is termed as a money lender as per the aforesaid definition found under section 2(8) of the Tamil Nadu Money lender Act,1957. The definition of money lender referred to above squarely applies to the person referred to in section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act,2003.''
5.In the instant case, the petitioners have filed a civil suit for recovery of money based on a Negotiable Instruments Act and the respondent / complainant even as per his complaint has borrowed a sum of Rs.14,18,400/-. Therefore, he would not come within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. Therefore, the private complaint initiated by the respondent / complainant is liable to be quashed.
6.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in S.T.C.No.3623 of 2012 is quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
27.06.2018 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No ia To The Judicial Magistrate, Otty, Nilgiri District.
R.HEMALATHA, J.
ia CRL.O.P.No.30923 of 2013 27.06.2018