IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the complaint to be in the name of the payee and the authorization of the person representing the company in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the sufficiency of prima facie material to show the complaint was filed by the authorized person.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (`Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking quashing of Complaint Case bearing no. 9403/2018, filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (`NI Act') pending before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act)-06, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.

2. Briefly facts of the case, as per the complaint filed under Section 138 of NI Act, are that the petitioner/accused had availed home loans to the tune of Rs. 12,35,532/- under loan account bearing no. PHR036101164838 from respondent bank and had executed the loan agreement and other documents and accordingly, the loan amount had got disbursed to the petitioner. The petitioner had issued a cheque bearing no. 787811 dated 06.12.2017 in favour of complainant/respondent bank for a sum of Rs. 12,32,532/- drawn on State Bank of India, New Delhi. The said cheque was deposited by the complainant bank, however, the same had got dishonoured for reasons `Exceeds Arrangement' vide memorandum dated 26.12.2017. Thereafter, the complainant/respondent had sent a demand notice dated 25.01.2018 to the petitioner herein, however, petitioner had failed to make payments against the dishonoured cheque. Accordingly, present case was filed and learned Trial Court had issued summons to petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner had filed an application under Section 251 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge on the ground that special power of attorney has not been executed by respondent/Axis Bank Ltd. in favour of authorized signatory i.e. Sandeep Singh, however, the same was dismissed by learned Trial Court vide order dated 21.08.2019. Subsequently, on 11.10.2019, learned Trial Court had framed notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. against petitioner herein.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner states that present complaint is not legally maintainable since it is not filed by complainant/respondent bank through its duly authorized competent person. It is stated that the complainant in the present case is Axis Bank Ltd and it has not executed any Special Power of Attorney in favour of the person namely Mr. Sandeep Singh who has signed and filed the present complaint before the learned Trial Court. It is argued that the Special Power of Attorney dated 27.11.2017filed with the complaint is one executed by M/s. Axis Securities Ltd and not by the complainant i.e. Axis Bank Ltd, and these two are different and distinct legal entities registered under Companies Act. It is stated that the holder of Special Power of Attorney has no personal knowledge and has not witnessed the transaction in question whereas law mandate that an explicit assertion as to the knowledge of the Power of Attorney holder about the transaction in question must be specified in the complaint, which is missing in the present case. Therefore, it is prayed that present petition be allowed.

4. Learned counsel for respondent, on the other hand, opposes the present petition and argues that the complaint filed under Section 138 of NI Act is maintainable. It is argued that Axis Security Ltd. is sister company of complainant/respondent bank i.e. Axis Bank Ltd. It is stated that Axis Securities Ltd. had appointed Mr. Sandeep Singh as their lawful attorney to represent respondent/Axis Bank and file cases on behalf of respondent inter alia under Section 138 of NI Act. It is also submitted that Axis Securities Ltd. has derived its power to act on behalf of respondent from Board resolution dated 16.01.2015 vide which the respondent has appointed it for engaging its employees for filing and attending various court cases to recover money from defaulting borrowers of the respondent, and in this regard, an appropriate service level agreement has also been executed between the respondent and Axis Securities Ltd. Therefore, it is prayed that present petition be dismissed.

5. This Court has heard arguments addressed by learned counsel of petitioner a