Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Mishra, learned A.P.P. No one appears on behalf of O.P. Nos. 2 to 8 in spite of valid service of notice.

2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 14.5.2012, passed in Complaint Case (C.P.) No. 271 of 2012, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder complaint petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C.

3. A complaint was made by the petitioner being constituted power of attorney holder of M/s Prabhu Coke Manufacturing Company alleging therein that the accused persons had placed purchase orders with M/s Prabhu Coke Manufacturing Company and pursuant to the same, materials were supplied. It has been alleged that consignment of Coke worth Rs.20,03,030.10/- was sent to the accused. It has further been alleged that after much persuasion, payment was made on various dates to the tune of Rs.5,02,089.00/-. It has been stated that two cheques were issued in favour of M/s Prabhu Coke Manufacturing Company and since the accused had instructed the bank to stop payment, as such when the complainant produced the cheques before the bank, it was returned with an endorsement "stop payment". It has been alleged that a legal notice was sent but since no steps were taken by the accused for making payment, a complaint was filed, which was registered as Complaint Case No.271 of 2012.

4. Complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and he was directed to file the original documents. On 20.02.2012, the original documents including power of attorney executed by and on behalf of M/s Prabhu Coke Manufacturing Company appointing the petitioner as its constituted attorney were filed. However, vide order dated 14.5.2012, the complaint was dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the complainant did not have the locus standi to file a complaint on behalf of the company.

5. Assailing the impugned order dated 14.5.2012, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was legally authorized by the company to file a complaint on its behalf and therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner did not have the locus standi to file a complaint. Learned counsel further submits that the complaint was filed by the petitioner not in his individual capacity but in a representative capacity and being authorized to do so by M/s Prabhu Coke Manufacturing Company. Learned counsel in support of his contention has referred to an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in [2013 (131) AIC 160 (S.C.)] [:2014(1) JLJR (SC) 48]

6. Before adverting to the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to look to the form and contents of the complaint petition so instituted. Cause title of the complaint petition reveals the name of the petitioner acting as the authorised agent of M/s Prabhu Coke Manufacturing Company. In paragraph 2 of the complaint petition, it has been specifically stated that the complainant had been authorized by M/s Prabhu Coke Manufacturing Company to take all steps and file the criminal case against the accused persons for realisation of the dues of the company. Thus, it is clear from a bare reading of the complaint petition that the same has been preferred by the petitioner on behalf of M/s Prabhu Coke Manufacturing Company and not on his personal behalf. It is to be seen in this background as to whether the petitioner had the locus to file the complaint case on behalf of the company. In the case of A.C. Narayanan (supra), considering a similar issue, it was held as follows:-

"20. The stand of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2007 is that no complaint can be filed and no cognizance of the complaint can be taken if the complaint is by the power-of-attorney holder, since it is against Section 200 of the Code and deserve