1 2025:CGHC:52943 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 143 of 2025 1 - Chandrakala Sahu W/o Tikaram Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Raikona, Tehsil Sarsiva District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Ritu Sahu D/o Chandrahas Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Tata Tehsil Sarsiva, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - Tikaram Sahu S/o Tulsiram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Raikona, Tehsil Sarsiva District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh --- Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Authorised Officer (D.M. Sarangarh Bilaigarh) District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Shiva Sahu S/o Tikaram Sahu R/o Raikona, Tehsil Sarshiva District Saranggarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - Jhagesh Sahu S/o Biharilal Sahu R/o Raikona, Tehsil Sarshiva District Saranggarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - Suryakant S/o Hemlal Sahu R/o Mohatra, Tehsil Sarshiva District Saranggarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - Laxminarayan Sahu S/o Bhojram Sahu R/o Raikona, Tehsil Sarshiva District Saranggarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.11.03 16:11:47 +0530 2 6 - Bhagvat Sahu S/o Dharamlal Sahu R/o Raikona, Tehsil Sarshiva District Saranggarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 7 - Ramesh Sahu S/o Ramdulari Sahu R/o Raikona, Tehsil Sarshiva District Saranggarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 8 - Dinesh Sahu S/o Devnarayan Sahu R/o Raikona, Tehsil Sarshiva District Saranggarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 9 - Sanjay Sahu S/o Mangluram Sahu R/o Raikona, Tehsil Sarshiva District Saranggarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 10 - Brinda Sahu D/o Lt Situram Sahu R/o Jaijaipur Ward No. 08, District Sakti Chhattisgarh 11 - Mithelesh Sahu S/o Premlal Sahu R/o Raikona, Tehsil Sarshiva District Saranggarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 12 - Mahendra Sahu @ Sonu R/o Tata Bilaspur, Thana Sarshiva, District Saranggarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 13 - Krishna Kumar Nirala S/o Devprasad Nirala R/o Hardi, Tehsil Saranggarh District Saranggarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause title, as taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate For Respondents No.5, 6, 7, 11 & 13 : Mr. Syed Ishhadil Ali, Advocate WPC No. 5810 of 2024 1 - Laxminarayan Sahu S/o Shri Bhojram Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Raikona Tahsil-Sarsiva Dist. Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. 2 - Bhagwat Sahu S/o Shri Dharamlal Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Raikona Tahsil-Sarsiva Dist. Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. 3 3 - Ramesh Sahu S/o Shri Ramdulari Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Raikona Tahsil-Sarsiva Dist. Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. 4 - Tikaram Sahu S/o Shri Tulsiram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Raikona Tahsil-Sarsiva Dist. Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. 5 - Mithilesh Sahu S/o Shri Premlal Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Raikona Tahsil-Sarsiva Dist. Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. 6 - Ritu Sahu D/o Shri Chandrahas Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Tata Tahsil-Sarsiva Dist. Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. 7 - Krishna Kumar Nirala S/o Devprasad Nirala Aged About 46 Years R/o Raikona Tahsil-Sarsiva Dist. Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Sarsiva, Sarangarh Dist.-Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Superintendent Of Police Sarangarh Dist. Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. 3 - Tahsildar Sarsiva, Dist. Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. 4 - District Magistrate And Competent Authority Under Competent Authority (Chhattisgarh Protection Of Depositors Inters Act, 2005) Sarangarh Dist. Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. 5 - Saurabh S/o Anil Kumar Agrawal Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 6, Sakti, P.S. And District- Sakti, C.G. --- Respondent(s) (Cause title, as taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Syed Ishhadil Ali, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 4. : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi 4 Order on Board 30/10/2025 1. Since initial issue involved in both these cases i.e. in MA No. 143 of 2025 and in WPC No. 5810 of 2024 are one and the same, therefore, both the cases are heard together and decided by this common order. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners would submits that FIR pertaining to Crime No.131/2024 for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 409, 120(B) and 34 of IPC and under Sections 6, 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 (henceforth ‘Act, 2005’) was registered in Police Station Sarsiwa, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh and charge-sheet was filed against appellants/petitioners Brinda Sahu, Tikaram Sahu, Mithilesh Sahu and Sanjay Sahu. Thereafter, supplementary charge sheet was filed implicating other appellants/petitioners alleging therein that the accused persons have induced the complainant and other similarly placed individuals for investing huge amount in crores on pretext of giving return to the tune of 30% per month by investing the money in crypto/shares by operating a firm ‘Shiva with journey’. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has further submits that in respect of aforesaid crime registered against the accused persons (appellants/petitioners), Superintendent of Police has sent a report to the District Magistrate/Competent authority, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh under Section 7 of the Act, 2005, thereafter, the District 5 Magistrate/Competent authority, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh passed order of attachment of property vide ad-interim order dated 02.09.2024, subsequently, modified order dated 07.10.2024 was passed which is annexed as Annexure P/2 in MA.143/2025 and Annexure P/1 in WPC No.5810/2024 respectively. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners further submit that after passing aforesaid ad-interim order dated 02.09.2024 and modified order dated 07.10.2024 by concerned District Magistrate/competent authority, petitioners of WPC No.5810/2024 preferred aforesaid writ petition challenging the order passed by concerned District Magistrate/competent authority. Subsequently, the concerned District Magistrate/competent authority has sent the modified order dated 07.10.2024 to the Special Court constituted under the Act, 2005 (Raigarh). Learned Special Court, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the appellants/petitioners passed impugned order dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure P/6) in MJC Criminal No.713/2024, whereby attachment order passed by the concerned District Magistrate/competent authority has been made absolute. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners would jointly submit that though in aforesaid MJC case, the Special Court provided due opportunity of hearing to the appellants but prior to passing of the ad-interim order dated 02.09.2024 and modified order dated 07.10.2024, the concerned District Magistrate/competent authority has not provided due opportunity of hearing to the 6 appellants/petitioners, whereas, he is obliged to provide due opportunity of hearing as provided in Rule 5 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Rules, 2015. They further submit that this point was also raised before the Special Court, but it did not accept their contentions and dehoring the Rule 5 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Rules, 2015 overlooked their contentions, hence they prayed that the ad-interim order dated 02.09.2024 and modified order dated 07.10.2024 be set-aside as also impugned order dated 08.07.2025 passed by Special Court (Raigarh) in MJC Criminal No.713/2024 be set-aside and matter may be remitted back to the concerned District Magistrate/competent authority to pass a fresh order under Section 7 of the Act, 2005, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the respective appellants/petitioners. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State supports the impugned ad-interim order dated 02.09.2024 and modified order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the concerned District Magistrate/competent authority. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Section 7 of the Act, 2005 provides procedure to be acted upon against any financial establishment who have cheated the depositors, after receiving complaint against the financial establishment. The Rule 5 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Rules, 2015 provides procedure to be followed by the District 7 Magistrate/competent authority upon receipt of complaint which reads as under : “5. Procedure on receipt of complaint - (1) On receipt of a complaint from depositors or otherwise, the Competent Authority may initiate such inquiry as he may deem necessary to satisfy himself as to whether or not any financial establishment has fraudulently defaulted: Provided that in relation to such inquiry, the Competent Authority may communicate a copy of the Complaint to the financial establishment, and in case the financial establishment satisfies the competent Authority that it has repaid such deposit, interest, bonus, profit or dues in any other form or rendered such services in respect of which the complaint was made, the Competent Authority may permit the complainant to withdraw the complaint.” 9. A bare reading of the aforesaid statutory provisions make it manifest that upon receipt of complaint from depositors or otherwise against the financial establishment, prior to passing ad-interim order of attachment of property, the concerned District Magistrate/competent authority ought to have provided opportunity of hearing to the financial establishment or person whose property are to be attached under the Act, 2005. Rule 5 of the Rules, 2015 specifically provides that on being provided opportunity of hearing, the financial establishment may satisfy the competent authority that it has repaid such deposit, interest, bonus, profit or dues in any other form etc., but this can only be done when notice was sent by the competent authority to the financial establishment/concerned persons, but in the instant cases neither notice was served to the appellants/petitioners by the 8 competent authority prior to passing ad-interim order dated 02.09.2024 and modified order dated 07.10.2024, nor they have been given proper opportunity of hearing. On this count, the State counsel was directed to make present the note-sheets maintained by the competent authority pertaining to the aforesaid orders passed by the competent authority, which was received by learned State counsel. Upon perusal of that note-sheets, he also conceded that as per note- sheets no notice was served to the appellants/petitioners and no opportunity of hearing was provided to them prior to passing aforementioned orders. 10. Thus, since impugned ad-interim order dated 02.09.2024 and modified order dated 07.10.2024 have been passed by the District Magistrate/competent authority without following the procedure prescribed under the Rule 5 of the Rules, 2015, therefore, aforesaid orders suffer from illegality from its inception, hence, it deserve to be set-aside. 11. In view of the above, appeal filed by the appellants i.e. MA.143/2025 and petition filed by the petitioners i.e. WPC No.5810/2024 are allowed, consequently impugned modified order dated 07.10.2024 passed by competent authority as well as impugned order dated 08.07.2025 passed in MJC Criminal No.713/2024 (arising out of the Crime No.131/2024) by the Special Court (constituted under the Act, 2005) (Raigarh) are set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the District Magistrate/competent authority, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh with a 9 direction to pass an order a fresh, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the appellants/petitioners by following the procedure prescribed in the Act, 2005 and the Rules, 2015. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case. Accordingly, both the cases MA.143/2025 and WPC No.5810/2024 are disposed of. 12. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ravi Mandavi