Gangele, J. -- 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 CrPC for quashment of the FIR No.256/2011 registered at Police Station Inderganj, Gwalior.

2. The petitioner pleaded that he is an employee and he was working in the capacity of Junior Executive in PACL India Ltd., a company incorporated on 13.2.1996. The aforesaid company is in the business of real estate dealing and it is in the sale and purchase of lands and development of lands. It is one of the premier companies. An FIR was registered against the petitioner companies at the police station on the ground that the company had been receiving deposits from various persons in contravention to the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2000’). A complaint was received from one person Girish Chand Bhadoriya. The Collector Gwalior vide order dated 3.9.2010 directed the company to submit all the documents for his investigation within a week, however, the company did not submit any document to the Collector. Thereafter, the Collector vide letter dated 8.2.2010 directed the S.P. Gwalior to conduct an enquiry.

3. The Station House Officer in-charge Inderganj, Gwalior directed the Director of the company vide letter dated 12.3.2011 to produce certain documents, however, the company did not produce the documents. It is further observed in the FIR that the company was not in the business of any real estate, but it was in banking business and it had received deposits from the various investors in the name of sale and purchase and development of plots, however, there was no development of plot, hence, the company committed offences.

4. The District Magistrate in exercise of powers under section 144 of CrPC also passed an order of seizure of the office of the PACL India Ltd. Company. The aforesaid order was challenged by the company in Writ Petition No.3599/2011. This Court vide order dated 22.2.2011 (reported in 2011(2) JLJ 375) passed in Writ Petition No.359/2011 dismissed the writ petition. The Court recorded following observations in para 28 of the order :

“28. In the present case, as we have discussed earlier, that by playing fraud the petitioner-company had been accepting deposits from general public. Admittedly, it had no licence or necessary sanction from the Reserve Bank of India, SEBI or other financial body or it had also not allowed the mandatory provisions of the Act of 2000. The petitioner-company itself stated that on a single day at Gwalior it returned the money of near about 51,000 depositors. It has also filed a list of depositors, which runs into 443 pages. The number of depositors we have not calculated, but, may be 50,000 and it returned the money of near about 45 crore. Hence, the situation was certainly grave in nature and prima facie was are of the opinion that the petitioner-company had been doing this work illegally. The real number of investors have not been disclosed by the petitioner-company in this petition or the District Magistrate or to police. This Court has also passed an interim order in the Public Interest Litigation and the petitioners were permitted to inspect the record of the company, in spite of that the petitioner did not submit the information, hence, it can safely be held that the activities of the petitioner-company would have created serious disturbances of grave character in the society. It is clearly stated that on real apprehension or real danger provisions of section 144 CrPC can be applied with. Hence, in such circumstances, in our opinion, there is no illegality or irregularity in passing the order dated 4th May 2011, Annexure P-1 by the District Magistrate.”

5. Against the aforesaid order, an SLP was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it is pending.

6. Earlier also some persons filed a petition under section 482 of CrPC for quashing of the same FIR registered against PACL India Ltd. vide Crime No.256/2011 dated 29.5.2011. The c