ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed present Cr.M.P. under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of registration of offence under Section 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 19.08.2015 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/- 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 chargesheet on 17.12.2015 was filed under Section 409, 120B, 34 and Sections 3,4,5,6 of the Inami Chit Fund Act as well as Section 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 (in short ‘the PDI Act’) as well as section 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 dated 14.07.2023 has rejected the objection of the petitioner for registration of FIR under Section 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, Section 10 of the PDI Act, 2005 is applicable. Therefore, he has filed present Cr.M.P. for quashing of the impugned order dated 14.07.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner has never defrauded or intended to cheat any one. He has stopped the payment in compliance of order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the SEBI whereby the company was directed to stop every business transaction with immediate effect and also restrained them not to take, receive or pay a single penny to any one. Thereafter, the SEBI issued order on 15.10.2015 to return the amount to the depositors with liberty to sell his asset, however, he was taken into custody by the police, therefore, he failed to sell out his asset and return amount to the depositors.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Rules, 2015 came into existence on 18.09.2015 therefore, the police authorities ought to have followed Rule 5 of the said rules. Since, the police authorities did not follow Rule 5 of the said rules, Section 10 of the PDI Act is not tenable and would pray for quashment of the same. He would further submit that charge sheet was filed on 17.12.2015 and the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge regarding application of Section 10 of the PDI Act patently are contrary to the law and against the criminal jurisprudence that the date of commission of offence is material point and on the date law which is in existence will be applicable not the law which has been subsequently enforced. He would further submit that the p