JUDGMENT

B.K. NAYAK, J. - In this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the petitioners challenge the order dated 05.11.2015 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda in I.C.C. Case No. 422 of 2015 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and directing the complainant to take steps for issuance of process for appearance of the accused persons.

2. The opposite party as complainant filed aforesaid complaint case against the petitioners and one Smt. Anita Chowdhary. Petitioner no. 1 is the company, which is the principal accused and petitioner no. 2 is the Managing Director of petitioner no.1. One Mrs. Anita Chowdhary, a Director of petitioner no.1- company had been arrayed as an accused but the impugned order of cognizance qua her has been quashed in CRLMC NO. 2403 of 2016.

The complaint petition was initially filed in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Panposh, Rourkela where the Bank on which the cheques were drawn was located and registered as I.C.C. No. 458 of 2015, but subsequently in view of promulgation of Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, by the Government of India, the learned S.D.J.M., Rourkela passed order returning the complaint to opposite party no. 1 (complainant company) for presentation before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction, and accordingly the complaint petition was filed in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda and registered as I.C.C. Case No. 422 of 2015.

3. As per the averments made in the complaint petition, the accused company (petitioner no.1) by virtue of an agreement entered into with the complainant-company (opposite party) acted as a stockist of the products manufactured by the complainant-company and in order to discharge some outstanding debt, the accused company had given seven number of cheques totally amounting to Rs. 1,10,00,000.00 (Rupees one crore ten lakhs) on 13.03.2015 and that on presentation, the said cheques were dishonoured for the reason “account closed” as informed by the Banker of the complainant-company. Thereafter, notice was issued in terms of the proviso under Section 138 of the N.I. Act demanding payment and that the accused company having failed to make payment, the complaint was filed. By the impugned order, the learned S.D.J.M. Jharsuguda took cognizance of the offence against all the accused persons.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint of the complainant company has been filed by an incompetent person without requisite averments, in violation of the mandatory requirement of Section 142 of the N.I. Act. It is stated that the complaint has been filed through one Subhasis Kumar Das, the General Manager (Accounting) of the complainant company, who is not competent to file the complaint on behalf of the company. It was also submitted that the said Subhasis Kumar Das did not issue the cheques in question and, therefore, had no knowledge about the alleged transaction, nor he witnessed the same. It was also urged that he was not authorized by the Board of Directors of the complainant company to file the complaint.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party complainant stating that the agreement for transaction with the accused company was signed by the General Manager (Commercial) of the complainant’s company as Power of Attorney Holder. It is also stated that an account reconciliation proceeding was done between the petitioners and opposite party-company on 28.10.2014 and Sri Subhasis Kumar Das was a party to the same reconciliation on behalf of the complainant-company and as such the reconciliation proceeding is a proof regarding the admission of balance dues as on 30.09.2014 payable by the accused-company to the complainant company. It was also submitted that the Board of Directors of the complainant company authorised its Managing Director to authorize any other officer of the company to file the complaint on behalf of the company and in acc