ORDER : 1. Petitioner No.1 is a Public Charitable Trust and petitioner Nos.2 to 13 are its Trustees/Directors. Petitioner No.1 is involved in public charitable activities and one of the activities being done by petitioner No.1 is promoting self-help groups and individuals by facilitating loans to them. In the process, petitioner No.1 disburses the loan amount as well as collects back the same along with interest. 2. Respondent No.1 has filed a private complaint before the JMFC Court Belthangady (Private Complaint No.14 of 2016), wherein it is alleged that petitioner No.1 is lending money and recovering the same in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 (for short “the Act, 1961”) and the Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interests Act, 2004 (for short “the Act, 2004”). This according to respondent No.1 requires prosecution of the petitioners under the provisions of the said Enactments and also under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The Trial Court on the ground that the respondent No.1 is not a borrower as a result of which he has no locus standii to prefer such a complaint and also on the ground that respondent No.1 has failed to make out a prima facie case has rejected the complaint. 4. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.191 of 2019 before the VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, which has set aside the order passed in PCR No.14 of 2016 and has remanded the matter back to the trial Court. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed with the following prayer: “Wherefore it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash the order dated 29.07.2021 in Crl.R.P. No.191/2019 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Mangalore vide Annexure-‘D’ in the interest of justice and equity.” 6. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 is a very well known public charitable institution and it only facilitates individuals and self-help groups getting loans as per the policies and programs of the government and the Reserve Bank of India, and there is no illegal activity committed by it. It is further contented that respondent no. 1 is a meddlesome interloper who is unnecessarily involved in harassing the petitioners from doing their philanthropic activities and he has made several false complaints against the petitioners and this is one such attempt. It is further contented that respondent no. 1 is a meddlesome interloper who is unnecessarily involved in harassing the petitioners from doing their philanthropic activities and he has made several false complaints against the petitioners and this is one such attempt. It is further submitted that no reliable material is produced by respondent No.1 in support of the allegations. For that reason, it is prayed that the criminal petition be allowed as prayed for. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that he has produced prima facie material to show that the activities of petitioner No.1 is in violation of various provisions of the Act, 1961 as well as Karnataka Prohibition of Charging of Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004. This, according to him, also amounts to an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. He submits that as prima facie material is produced, an enquiry needs to be initiated in this regard and the matter is required to be referred by the Magistrate to the jurisdictional police for investigation. He further submits that, to set criminal law in motion, it need not be the aggrieved person himself and any person can set the same in motion. 8. It is a well recognized principle of criminal jurisprudence that, any person can set the criminal law in motion except where the statute mandates to the contrary. Locus Standii of the complainant is a concept foreign to the criminal jurisprudence unless the statute otherwise prescribes. Under the circumstances, the Trial Court ought not to have rejected the case of respondent No.1 on the ground of him not having locus standi. 9. Now, the question that arises for consideration is, under the given facts and circumstances of the case, whether the first respondent-complainant has produced relevant prima facie material, warranting the trial Court to issue process to the accused. 10. As mentioned above, the only allegation made by the complainant against the petitioner No.1-trust is that, it is involved in lending money and collecting it back, in violation of the provisions of the Act, 1961 and the Act, 2004. A mere allegation to that effect does not require a Magistrate to issue process to the accused. The same is required to be backed by relevant material. 11. Respondent No.1, along with the complaint, has produced the following documents. A mere allegation to that effect does not require a Magistrate to issue process to the accused. The same is required to be backed by relevant material. 11. Respondent No.1, along with the complaint, has produced the following documents. Based on the aforementioned documents, it is contented that petitioner No.1 is charging higher rate of interest than permitted under law. Attention of the Court is invited to Document No.4, where the interest charged is 9% for various loans with 1% processing fee. Attention is also drawn to Document No.6, which is the CRISIL ratings of petitioner No.1-institution where the interest rate is mentioned from 18% to 9% for various loans. It is submitted that these two documents show that petitioner No.1 is charging higher rate of interest. 12. However, respondent No.1 has not produced any document or provision of law to show what is the permissible rate of interest that can be charged by petitioner No.1. Further, Document No.6 relied upon by respondent No.1 mentions that the interest of 18% to 9% is charged on a declining basis and all these documents are public documents and declared by petitioner No.1-Trust. 13. Respondent No.1-complainant has failed to produce documents relating to any one specific transaction of petitioner No.1-trust which is in violation of the law. He has merely collected certain documents which are available in the public domain which pertains to petitioner No.1-Trust and has made a complaint based on the same. He has failed to explain how those documents prima facie establish any criminal activity on part of petitioner No.1 or its trustees. It is a clear case of harassing the petitioners herein who are involved in charitable and philanthropic activities. 14. The Trial Court has mainly relied upon the locus standi of respondent No.1 to maintain a complaint and has dismissed the same which is erroneous. At the same time, the Appellate Court, while finding out the error committed by the Trial Court, has failed to take into consideration that the complaint made by respondent No. 1 is frivolous, vexatious and without any basis, and has remanded the matter back to the Trial Court. 15. At the same time, the Appellate Court, while finding out the error committed by the Trial Court, has failed to take into consideration that the complaint made by respondent No. 1 is frivolous, vexatious and without any basis, and has remanded the matter back to the Trial Court. 15. As it is found that the complaint of respondent No.1 against the petitioners is frivolous, vexatious, without any basis, and with the sole intention of harassing the petitioners, by abusing the process of law, I am of the opinion that, it is a just case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court and quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. Hence, the following: ORDER: i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. ii) The order dated 29.07.2021 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.191/2019 by VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru stands quashed. iii) The proceedings in private complaint in PCR No.14 of 2016 in the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady, Dakshina Kannada, stands quashed.