Kishore Chandra Jena Vs State of Odisha

This CRLMC has been filed for quashing the proceedings initiated on the basis of the F.I.R. in Chauliaganj P.S. Case No. 129 of 2015 corresponding to C.T. Case No. 34 of 2015 pending

¶16

before the Presiding Officer, Designated Court, OPID Act, Cuttack.

¶17

In paragraph 3 of the petition, it has been stated that the matter has been amicably settled outside the Court and as the petitioners have returned the amount to the informant (opposite party no.2), the informant does not want to procced with the case against the petitioners.

¶18

Page 1 of 3.

¶19

Mr. M. Mulia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Section 7 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act (in short ‘OPID Act’) before its deletion vide amendment in the year 2016, provided for compounding of offences. He submits that Section 7 of the OPID Act has been deleted vide the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Amendment Act, 2016 (in short “Amendment Act 2016”) which was published in the Gazette on 11.11.2016. But since the F.I.R. in this case was registered in the year, 2015, before the said provision was deleted, the designated court has the power to compound the offence in exercise of power under Section 7 of the OPID Act.

¶20

Mr. Anil Kumar Nayak, learned Additional Standing Counsel

¶21

for the OPID submits that since the CRLMC has been filed in the year 2023, Section 7 of the OPID Act will not be attracted. He also submits that the petitioner has not approached the designated court, but has directly approached this Court.

¶22

Section 7 of the OPID Act is extracted below:

¶23

“7. (1) An offence punishable under section 6 may, before the institution of the prosecutoin, be compounded by the Competent Authority or after the institution of the prosecution, be compounded by the Competent Authority with

¶24

Page 2 of 3.

¶25

the permission of the Designated Court on payment of the entire amount due to the depositors with or without interest.

¶26

(2) Where an offence has been compounded under subsection (1), no proceeding or further proceeding, as the case may be, shall be taken or continued against the offender in respect of the offence so compounded and the offender, if in custody, shall be discharged forthwith.”

¶27

Considering the fact that the petitioners rely on the provisions

¶28

of the Section 7 of the OPID for compounding the offence, but have approached this Court without filing an application before the competent authority or the designated court for permission to compound the offence, this CRLMC is disposed of granting liberty

¶29

to the petitioners to move appropriate application before the designated court within a period of two weeks, which shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶30

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case of the petitioner.

¶31

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

( Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant puspa Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 07-May-2025 20:11:54

¶35

Page 3 of 3.

Kishore Chandra Jena v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishore Chandra Jena v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayakrishna Vs Basudev Thakur

Kana Madhi Vs State of Odisha

Gagan Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Nair Vs State of Orissa

Chittaranjan Moharana @ Sambhu Vs State of Odisha

Sania @ Kanha Malik Vs State of Odisha