Back
SHIVAJI PANDEY
Abhay Kumar Chatterjee @ Abhay Kumar Upadhaya @ Abhay Kr. Upadhaya – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
The legal issue at the core of this case concerns the scope of authority of a power of attorney-holder in the context of filing criminal proceedings. The court established that a power of attorney-holder's authority is limited to acts explicitly done in pursuance of the powers granted by the instrument. Specifically, such a holder cannot depose on matters that only the principal can have personal knowledge of, nor can they initiate criminal proceedings based on transactions or facts that the principal must personally clarify or prove (!) (!) .
In this case, the complaint was filed by the attorney-holder on behalf of Ajay Kr. Chatterjee, who was allegedly gifted property by his father. The court found that the power of attorney did not expressly authorize the attorney-holder to file criminal cases or to act in matters concerning the validity of the gift, which is a civil issue. The dispute regarding the deed of gift, which is central to the criminal allegations, could only be properly tested in a civil suit, not through criminal proceedings initiated by the attorney-holder (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the court emphasized that the status of the deed of gift was within the personal knowledge of the principal, Ajay Kr. Chatterjee, and could only be explained or proved by him. The attorney-holder, having no personal knowledge of the gift's creation, could not depose or give evidence regarding it, especially in a criminal case where the validity of such a deed is in question (!) (!) (!) .
Based on these principles, the court held that the complaint filed by the attorney-holder was not sustainable, as it was primarily based on the existence and validity of the deed of gift—a matter that is inherently civil. As such, the criminal proceedings initiated on this basis were liable to be quashed, reaffirming that the authority of a power of attorney-holder does not extend to acting on matters that require personal knowledge or civil adjudication.
1. In this case, petitioners are challenging the order of cognizance dated 4th April 2011 for offence under sections 420, 465, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code arising from Complaint Case No. C-2740/2009 pending before the Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Siwan.
2. Ajay Kr. Chatterjee is eldest son of late Kali Pada Chatterjee whereas petitioners No. 1 to 4 are sons and daughter and petitioner No. 5 is wife of Kali Pada Chatterjee. Petitioner Nos. 6 to 9 are purchaser of disputed land. Petitioner No. 12 is deed writer and petitioner Nos. 10 and 11 are conspirator of execution of deed.
3. The complainant is Constituted Attorney of Ajay Kr. Chatterjee @ Ajay Kr. Upadhayay on 17.6.2009. On the strength of being a power of attorney-holder, filed the complaint case vide Complaint Case No.2740/2009. In the complaint petition it has been alleged that the land in dispute appertaining to plot No. 476 area measuring 12 kathas 09 dhurs were acquired by the father of Ajay Kr. Chatterjee in the year 1931 and his father, namely, Late Kali Pada Chatterjee had gifted the said property to Ajay Kr. Chatterjee in the year 1972 and Ajay Kr. Chatterjee had given Power of Attorney to sell the land
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
