The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 was not intended to govern real estate transactions and the nature of the transaction involved in the case did not qualify as a 'deposit' under the Act.

JUDGMENT

S. K. Panigrahi, J. - In the present application, the petitioner seeks to challenge the criminal proceeding vide CT Case No.14/2018 and I.A. No.3/2019 in relation to EOW Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.17/2018, pending before the court of the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court, under the O.P.I.D. Act, Cuttack for the offences punishable under Sections 420/406/467/ 468/471/120-B of the I.P.C. read with Section 6 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011.

2. The succinct facts of the case as narrated by the informant is that in November 2012, he was apprised about the availability of a 2400 sq.ft. plot in Jatani Tehsil near IIT through an advertisement issued by M/s. Z-Infra Construction Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter 'Company'). He then contacted Prasan Kumar Patra (hereinafter 'co-accused'), MD of the Company to purchase the aforementioned plot. The co-accused assured the informant of absolute right and title of the land after conversion of the plot in question, and construction of a peripheral wall with an accessible road attached to the said plot. The co-accused also allegedly represented that the land belonged to the Company; the cost of the plot is Rs.3,60,000/- and its conversion and the boundary wall would cost Rs.35,000/- and Rs.60,000/- respectively. Thereafter, the informant booked the plot and paid the amount against the plot, and its conversion and the boundary wall. Although, the plot was registered in his name, the road was not constructed as promised. He then allegedly came to know that the Company doesn't have the right and title over the plots over which the connecting road was supposed to be constructed. He alleges that the Company has intentionally defrauded him and 600 other persons by selling them such disconnected plots over many false promises and fabricated documents to dupe around Rs.12 Crores.

3. On receipt of such information from the informant, the petitioner and the other accused were arrested and on recommendation of the EOW Bhubaneswar, their properties were attached to protect the interest of the investors.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the Director of the Company and she is the wife of the co-accused. The co-accused holds 60 percent shares of the Company while the petitioner holds the remaining 40 percent shares. Learned Counsel further contends that notwithstanding the aforementioned accusations, the petitioner and the co-accused are being erroneously prosecuted under the OPID Act. He clarifies that the petitioner and her 'real estate' business is ultra vires in so far as the operational jurisdiction of the OPID Act as the Company doesn't qualify to be a 'Financial Establishment' as per the provisions of the Act. Learned Counsel further submitted that the police wrongfully arrested the petitioner and the co-accused, without perusing the contents of the complaint. The present case should clearly be dealt with under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and Odisha Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rule, 2017 which specifically deals with the subject of 'real estate'.

5. Per Contra, learned Counsel for the OPID, vehemently opposed the instant application by stating that it was a case of planned cheating and fraud. He relied on the agreements to contend that the accused persons had defaulted in fulfilling their part of the promise to deliver plots with a connecting road as well as to return the amount paid to them. He also submitted that the provision of the OPID will squarely apply to the present case and that the provisions of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016 have no application whatsoever to the present case.

6. Heard Mr. Ashwini Kumar Das, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. J.K. Patra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for OPID and perused the case records.

7. I had an opportunity to deal with the ambiguities concerning the object and applicat