Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Smt. Neelam Rajendra Nanaware, filed a criminal appeal under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1999 against the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Designated Court under the MPID Act, City Civil and Sessions Court, Mumbai. That order dismissed her application (Exh. 35) under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking discharge in MPID Special Case No. 23/2020. The prosecution arose from Crime No. 44/2004 registered under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act. The case involved M/s SOAR System Private Limited, its directors (accused Nos. 1 to 4) and the appellant as an additional director. The complainant, Mr. Sandeep Ramchandra Rane, was introduced by an agent to a hosiery scheme promising investors five times the invested amount within six weeks. On 16.02.2002, he invested Rs. 30,000. A total of 181 investors invested Rs. 62,14,040. The directors allegedly failed to return the promised returns. After the charge‑sheet was filed, the appellant sought discharge, but the trial court dismissed the application. Aggrieved, she filed the present appeal before the High Court. The High Court admitted the appeal and, with consent of parties, took it up for final hearing, reserving judgment on 25 April 2025 and pronouncing it on 2 May 2025. The extract of the judgment does not contain the court’s final analysis or decision.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure – Discharge – Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1999 Sections 3, 4, 11 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 406, 420, 34 – The appellant, an additional director of a company, sought discharge from prosecution for offences relating to a fraudulent hosiery scheme wherein 181 investors were allegedly duped of Rs. 62,14,040 with a promise of five‑times returns in six weeks. The trial court dismissed the application dated 15.01.2025 (Exh. 35) holding that there was prima facie material. On appeal, the High Court admitted the matter and heard it finally. (Paras 3–5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Designated Court dismissing the application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC should be set aside.
Law Points
- Discharge under Section 227 CrPC
- Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act
- 1999 Sections 3 and 4
- Indian Penal Code Sections 406
- 420
- 34
