NIRANJAN GUIN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the learned Designated Court under the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 (for short "the OPID Act"), Cuttack in C.T. No.22 of 2017 framing charge under Section 420/34 of I.P.C. and Section 6 of the OPID Act against the appellant and one co-accused is sought to be quashed qua the appellant.

(2.) On 11.11.2017 the Chauliaganj Police registered the case on receiving a written report from the Informant, namely, Smt. Snehalata Sukla to the effect that one Basudev Behera, the co-accused of the present appellant who was involved in Real Estate business, took an amount of Rs.7,73,000/- with an assurance of providing a piece of land, and cheated her by not providing the land and not refunding her money either. Police took up investigation and on completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the aforesaid Basudev Behera and the present appellant suggesting their trial under Section 420/34 of IPC and under Section 6 of the OPID Act. According to the prosecution, both the accused were running the Partnership Firm, namely, M/s. Satyam Sai Infratech having their office at Mahanadi Vihar, Cuttack for carrying on their Real Estate business, and in furtherance of such business, they collected money from the Informant and others with assurance of registering land in their favour, and ultimately, they cheated the depositors by not providing the assured service and not returning their deposited money, for which not only the present case, but also some other criminal cases have been registered against them.

(3.) The appellant named above has sought for quashing of the charge framed against him by the learned Designated Court on the grounds that the Informant has not brought any allegation against him inasmuch as he never approached the Informant much less with demand of any money or deposit, or giving any assurance of registering any land in her favour. It is his further contention that the transaction allegedly entered into by the Informant and the co-accused - Basudev Behera had no reference to the Partnership Firm named above. He has further contended that the charge has been framed by the learned Court below without affording him any opportunity of hearing and no reason has been assigned in the impugned order as to why charge under Section 6 of the OPID Act was framed against the appellant when the Investigating Officer had not added the said offence against him in the charge-sheet. In course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant has made a reference to certain case laws to buttress his argument that the impugned order is liable to be quashed when the charge is found to be groundless.