Back
PANKAJ JAIN
Victory Oil Gram Udyog Association – Appellant
Versus
Hindustan Oil Traders – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pankaj Jain, J.
This order shall dispose of two petitions i.e CRM-M-26253-2023 and CRM-M-26254-2023 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the complaints bearing No.715/2022 & 570/2022 dated 25.02.2022 along with a summoning Order dated 30.04.2022 (Annexure P-2).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two-fold submissions. First submission raised by counsel for the petitioner is with respect to the complaint having been invalidly initiated by attorney, who is not a witness to the transaction.
3. The second submission is based upon the power of attorney alleged to have been executed by the partners of the firm who have been arraigned as petitioners No.3 to 7 in the present petition in favour of petitioner No.2. He further submits that petitioners No.3 to 7 are neither active partners nor the signatory to the cheque ought not have been summoned as accused.
4. In order to buttress his arguments, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon law laid down by Apex Court in the case of “A.C. Narayanan Versus State of Maharashtra and another” reported as (2014) 11 SCC 790.
5. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the records of th
The legal competence of filing a complaint through Power of Attorney and the role of the power-of-attorney holder as per the law laid down in A.C. Narayanan's case.
Point of Law : There is no specific assertion as to the knowledge of the power of attorney holder in the said transaction explicitly in the complaint
A power of attorney holder can file a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act if they have personal knowledge of the transaction, and this must be explicitly stated in the complaint.
A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be filed through a power of attorney, but the holder must demonstrate personal knowledge of the transaction, a requirement which ma....
(1) Dishonour of cheque – When, complainant/payee is a company, an authorized employee can represent company.(2) Dishonour of cheque – Dismissal of a complaint at threshold by Magistrate on question ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the SPA holder had the authority to prosecute the petitioners as directors of the company under section 138 N.I. Act, and the Ld. MM had juris....
Power of attorney holder competent to prosecute complaint if aware of facts; no right to summon principal without prejudice shown.
Authorization for filing complaints under the N.I. Act is a curable defect; a company acts through its Board of Directors, and post-initiation ratification is permissible.
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
