ORDER : Petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings initiated in C.C.No.1275/2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha, alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 506(1) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act (for short the Act). 2. According to the prosecution, the accused had without any license or permission and with intent to cheat the defacto complainant had on 29.12.2013, lend an amount of Rs.12,00,000/-and obtained signed stamp papers and thereafter failed to return the amount and thereby committed the offences alleged against him. 3. Smt.R.Ranjanie, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the entire prosecution against the petitioner is without any authority and is liable to be quashed. According to her, even if the allegations are assumed to be true, still the offences under the Act or those under Section 420 or Section 34 IPC are made out and therefore, the complaint being one initiated with malafides, is liable to be quashed. 4. Sri.M.A.Abdul Hakhim, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand submitted that the definition of the word money lender does not exclude a single money lending activity and therefore, considering the purpose and object of the Act, the contentions of the petitioner cannot be accepted. It was further submitted that having regard to the nature of allegations, the same is a matter to be considered during trial and cannot be quashed by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor also supported the contentions of the counsel for the 2nd respondent. 6. I have considered the rival contentions. 7. Primarily, petitioner is being prosecuted for allegedly lending money to the 2nd respondent. The final report alleges that, petitioner had lend money to the defacto complainant without any permission or license. 8. No where in the final report is it mentioned that petitioner is carrying on the business of money lending or has lend money to any other person other than petitioner. What is revealed from the final report is that a solitary instance of lending of money by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is treated as the activity of money lending. 9. What is revealed from the final report is that a solitary instance of lending of money by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is treated as the activity of money lending. 9. A perusal of the object of the Act reveals that the Act is intended to regulate and control the business of money lenders in the State of Kerala. The definition of the word money lender as per Section 2(7) is as follows: “[(7)”Money-lender” means a person whose main or subsidiary occupation is the business of advancing and realising loans or acceptance of deposits in the course of such business and includes any person appointed by him to be in charge of a branch office or branch offices or a liaison office or any other office by whatever name called, of his principal place of business and a pawn broker, but does not include -]” (a) a bank or a co-operative society; or (b) the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (Central Act 31 of 1956); or [(bb) the Industrial Credit and Investment corporation of India limited incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (7 of 1913)]; (c) the Industrial Finance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (Central Act 15 of 1948); or [(d) xxxx] (e) the State Financial Corporation established under Section 3 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (Central Act 63 of 1951); or (f) any institution established by or under an Act of Parliament or the Legislature of a State, which grants any loan or advance in pursuance of the provisions of the Act; or (g) any other institution in the public sector, whether incorporated or not exempted by the Government by notification.” 10. A glance at the definition and a reference to the preamble as well as the objects of the Act reveal that what is intended to be regulated, is not a solitary instance of money lending, but a series of activity, taking the form of a business of advancing and realising loans. 11. The term business has a significant connotation in legal parlance. A continuous or series of activity which partake the character of an occupation can be regarded as business under law. 11. The term business has a significant connotation in legal parlance. A continuous or series of activity which partake the character of an occupation can be regarded as business under law. The word business is a term of wide important and has to mean an activity carried on continuously and systematically by use of his labour or skill with a view to earn an income. The term has to be perceived from the purport of the statute and the contextual implications. Dehors the contextual setting one salient feature of business is continuity. Reference can profitably be made to the various definitions of the term business as enunciated in P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s “The Advanced Law Lexicon” 4th Edition. In all those definitions, continuous activity is regarded as essential to treat an activity as business. 12. In this context, it is apposite to refer to the decision in Vimal Vs. State of Kerala [ 2015(1) KLT 524 ], wherein this Court had held that lending money to a person under one or more documents will not by itself constitute the offence of unauthorised money lending under the Kerala Money Lenders Act. Similarly, in the decision in OP (Crl.) No.64/2015 dated 06.04.2015, also this Court had observed that it is not known how lending Rs.5,000/-once in a personal transaction will constitute the offence punishable under the Kerala Money Lenders Act. 13. In the instant case, no material has been adduced by the prosecution to successfully prosecute the petitioner under the Money Lenders Act alleging conduct of a money lending business. None of the circumstances culled out during investigation, reveals that the petitioner has indulged in a continuous activity of money lending or that petitioner had lend money to any person other than the 2nd respondent. 14. Apart from the above, the basic ingredients of Section 420 I.P.C are also not seen made out from the prosecution case. In view of the above, the entire prosecution against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of the court, and is liable to be quashed. 15. Accordingly, I quash Annexure A9 final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1275/2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Thodupuzha. This Crl.M.C. is allowed as above.