The cooperative society's management is independent, and its status does not exempt it from liability under the OPID Act despite being state-registered.

Judgment :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The petitioner in this petition invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the alleged offence punishable under Section 6 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “the OPID Act”) in C.T. Case No.13 of 2022 arising out of Kalinganagar P.S. Case No.224 of 2022 pending in the Court of the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under the O.P.I.D. Act, Cuttack.

2. On the basis of the written complaint of Ms Banita Mohapatra and others, the aforementioned P.S. Case No.224 of 2022 was registered on 19.10.2022 against the petitioner and others for alleged offences under Sections 406 /420/34 of the I.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 07.04.2023 against the present petitioner and others for alleged offences under /420/467/468/471/120-B/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 6 of the OPID Act and the further investigation has been kept open under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C.

3. The petitioner in this petition has questioned the invocation of offence under Section 6 of the OPID Act against him.

4. The facts emerged from the investigation are that Neelachal Multi Purpose Cooperative Society Limited, (hereinafter referred to as “the NMPCSL”) is a Cooperative Society registered under the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act on 04.08.2010. It accepts the deposit from its members as investment with a promise to give exorbitant return and disburses the deposit amount to its members on loan basis charging 18 % of interest. There are as many as six hundred members in the Society, out of them three hundred members had invested their money in the Society in different Schemes with an expectation that they will get high return as promised by the Society. Further, the members had invested around Rs.5 Crores. As on 25.12.2021 about Rs.1.60 Crores was landed to its members as loan, which was to be recovered from them. It is further alleged that the Society had conducted no audit as per law, accounts were not properly reconciled. The present petitioner has been in the helm of the affair of the Society throughout. All the accounts were being operated by the present petitioner as per the Board resolution dated 19.04.2011 and 05.08.2012. The petitioner has signed in all the receipt vouchers, investment documents of the members, share-certificate, etc. Since the Society has been completely mismanaged, the money invested by the members could not be returned. Therefore, the members have agitated against the society management. Eventually, the present F.I.R. has been lodged at the instance of few members.

5. Heard Mr. Ashwini Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, learned counsel for the OPID.

6. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that criminal prosecution cannot lie in so far as the Society is concerned and while contending so, he refers to the definition of ‘Financial Establishment’ contained in Section 2(d) of the OPID Act. It is submitted that as per the said definition, a financial establishment means an individual or an association of individuals, a firm or a company but does not include a co- operative society owned or controlled by State Government or the Government of India and also a banking company as defined in Section clause(c) of Section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The sum and substance of the argument is that the co-operative society duly registered and virtually controlled by