The main legal point established is that a complaint filed through a power of attorney must be accompanied by the relevant documentation, and the court has the power to quash criminal proceedings when there is an abuse of the process of law.

Dr. S. Muralidhar, I. - These are four revision petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking the quashing of Complaint Case Nos. 177 /2003,178/2003,179/2003,180/2003 titled Smt. Shikha Batra through her Husband/Attorney v. Smt. Taruna Batra and the summoning order dated 13th November, 2003 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), New Delhi summoning the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I.

Act).

Background facts

2. The complainant Smt. Shikha Batra is the sister-in-law of the Petitioner Smt. Tarun Batra. In other words, Smt. Taruna Batra is the wife of the brother of Smt. Shikha Batra. The marriage took place on 14th April, 2000 after which the Petitioner began residing in her matrimonial home.

According to the Petitioner, soon after the marriage her husband got a bank account opened in her name in Canara Bank, Janpath Branch, New Delhi and obtained her signatures on several blank cheques stating that he wanted to utilise them for business purposes. The Petitioner obliged by signing all those cheques.

3. It is averred in the petition that the Petitioners husband and other family members, including the husband and sister-in-law Smt. Shikha Batra, the complainant in this case, are carrying on their business in the name of M/s. Virtual Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. where they all are Directors. They are also Directors of M/s. Vishwas Securities Pvt. Ltd., and certain other firms. The Petitioner was also one of the Directors of M/s. Vishwas Securities Pvt. Ltd., which fact was not known to the Petitioner till a reply was filed by her husband to an application filed by her under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

4. According to the Petitioner, there was matrimonial discord and this culminated in proceedings before the Crime Against Women Cell (CAW) where a compromise was arrived between the parties on 24th May, 2002. In terms of the compromise, it was agreed that the Petitioner, her husband Shri Amit Batra and the child would live on the second floor of the property No. B-135, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar, and that the in-laws will reside on the ground and first floor. However this did not improve matters, and led to a FIR being registered on 10th January, 2003 under Sections 406 I 498- AI 506 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the husband and the in-laws. On 11th January, 2003, the husband and in-laws were arrested. It is stated that from 12th January, 2003 onwards, the Petitioner was compelled to return to her parents house.

5. There were further proceedings seeking mandatory injunction in Suit No. 87/2003 filed by the Petitioner against her husband and in-lawsin the Court of the Civil Judge, Delhi. An order was passed in that suit on 4th March, 2003 directing both parties not to interfere with the possession of each other. This order was reversed by the judgment dated 17th September, 2004 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Delhi. The Petitioner then succeeded before this Court which by an order dated 17th January, 2005 restored the order dated 4th March, 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge. However, the Respondent further took the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court where she apparently succeeded. This entire narration of facts is to show that the parties have been having continuing disputes against each other since January 2003.

6. It is stated that the Petitioners husband had filed HMA Case No. 207/2002 which was dismissed for default on 26th March, 2004. The maintenance ordered by the learned Judge was not honoured by the Petitioners husband. The respondent then further filed a criminal complaint against the Petitioner and her parents pursuant to which FIR No. 695/2003 was registered at Police Station Ashok Vihar for the offences under Sections 380/447/447/506/34, IPC. This Court by an order dated 15th April, 2004 stayed further criminal proceedings.

7. According to the Petitioner, when she did not r