AMIT KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed present Cr.M.P. under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of registration of offence under Sec. 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 (in short ' the Act') in connection with Crime No. 596/2015 registered at the Police Station ' Supela District ' Durg (C.G.) for commission of offence and subsequent charge sheet in Spl.C.PDI Act/1/2016 pending before the Special Judge (District and Session Judge) Durg, District ' Durg, Chhattisgarh.

(2.) The prosecution story, in brief, is that respondent No. 4 filed a complaint on 19/8/2015 u/s 420/34 of the IPC at Supela Police Station, District Durg alleging that he has deposited more than 1 lakh rupees in different schemes in the company promulgated by the petitioner and other co- accused named and styled as "Yash Dream Real Estate Limited Company" and as per the assurance given by the petitioner and his company that Rs.2000.00 per month would be returned in the form of Bond but since 8 month back the petitioner has not returned the said amount on the pretext that the SEBI has issued direction not to pay to any depositors. There was no any responsible person present to explain the reason or to pay them the amount. Therefore, they have lodged the FIR on 19/08/2015 against the petitioner and others. Based on the complaint, the FIR was registered against the petitioner and other coaccused and charge-sheet on 17/12/2015 was filed under Sec. 409, 120B, 34 and Ss. 3,4,5,6 of the Inami Chit Fund Act as well as Sec. 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 (in short 'the PDI Act') as well as Sec. 45 of the RBI Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the order passed in WPCR No. 147/2016 decided on 02/05/2023 this Court has ordered to decide the criminal case first and then to decide the matter of attachment of property but surprisingly learned Special court has passed the order making the attachment absolute and sent to the District Magistrate proceeding. The learned Special judge vide impugned order dtd. 14/7/2023 has rejected the objection of the petitioner for registration of FIR under Sec. 10 of the PDI Act by recording its finding that offence has been registered on 19/08/2015 and the said PDI Act, 2005 has come in existence from 23/07/2015 therefore, Sec. 10 of the PDI Act, 2005 is applicable. Therefore, he has filed present Cr.M.P. for quashing of the impugned order dtd. 14/7/2023 passed by the learned Special Judge.