IMPORTANT POINT
Whether complainant is authorised to file complaint is a mixed question of fact and law and it can only be decided during trial.

ORDER

Amar Singh Chauhan, J.—Heard Sri Manoj Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Suresh Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

2. The revisionist Piyush Mishra has preferred this criminal revision against the order dated 10.4.2015, passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai in Complaint Case No. 3514 of 2014 (Bhupendra Singh v. Piyush Mishra) under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun whereby the application for discharge/dropping the proceeding filed by the revisionist, has been rejected.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that the revisionist is Director of a firm/company namely “Blue Word Infra Network Ltd. Co. Lucknow”. He has taken diesel without payment from the respondent no. 2 for supply of his mobile tower in the aforesaid Company. In order to clear payment, the cheque bearing no. 016506 dated 15.2.2012 for amount of Rs. 14,55,697/- was issued by the revisionist but the cheque was returned back to the revisionist with the remark of insufficient fund. Therefore, notice was issued to the revisionist even then the revisionist did not make the payment with the result that the complaint was filed and the revisionist was summoned under section 138 of N.I. Act. Against the summoning order dated 06.07.2012 revisionist has filed Criminal Misc. Application under section 482 No. 32009 of 2014 before this Court which was disposed of by order dated 14.8.2014 with direction if objection/discharge application is filed on behalf of the applicants within 30 days, it is expected that the court concerned will consider and decide the same expeditiously at appropriate stage in accordance with law. Thereafter in compliance of the aforesaid order the revisionist moved objection/discharge application dated 12.9.2014 which was rejected by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate.

4. Feeling aggrieved the revisionist came up before the Court in this revision.

5. Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the complaint case was filed by the respondent no. 2 is not maintainable because he has not made party to the Company i.e. “Blue Word Infra Network Ltd. Co. Lucknow”. Therefore, it is wholly violated the provision of N.I. Act. It is further submitted that in the similar facts and circumstances of the case, the Apex Court in case of Aneeta Hada v. M/s Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd., 2012 Cri.L.J. 2525 (SC) has held that without impleading the company the complaint is not maintainable. It is also submitted that against the same transaction of Rs. 20,34000/one case is already running and revisionist is continuously depositing the same in its instalment, therefore, on the same cause of action the present criminal proceeding is misuse of process of the Criminal Procedure Code. The revisionist in another case bearing no. 295 of 2012 under sections 406, 420 IPC was granted bail on the condition that revisionist would pay the amount to the owner of the Petrol Pump i.e. M/s Siyarani Rajput Filing Station and he is continuously paying the said amount. It is further submitted that the revisionist has taken diesel of Rs. 20,34000/from M/s Siyarani Rajput Filing Station (Petrol Pump). In this regard, revisionist has deposited Rs. 6 lacs cash in favour of respondent no. 2 for depositing in favour of M/s Siyarani Rajput Filing Station but the said amount was not given by the respondent no. 2 to the owner of the Petrol Pump. Thereafter the Manager of M/s Siyarani Rajput Filing Station build pressure upon the revisionist for depositing Rs. 20,34000/against the transaction of diesel which was dues upon the revisionist. After some time respondent no. 2 also build pressure for depositing Rs. 14,55,695/against the same transaction. While against the same transaction the revisionist had already given cheque of Rs. 20,34000/in favour of Manager of the