Advocates appeared:
For the Applicant(s) : L.M. Singh
For the Opposite Party(s) :Alok Kumar Yadav, Govt. Advocate

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The complaint was filed by M/s. Krishna Hotels and Developers through its partner Smt. Saroj Dubey, alleging offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act and IPC, regarding dishonoured cheques issued in favour of Hotel Paradise (!) (!) .

2. The core issue pertains to the authority and locus standi of the complainant to initiate the complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court examined whether the complainant, represented by a third party, had the legal standing to file such a complaint (!) (!) .

3. The relevant legal provisions specify that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can only be filed by the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque. A third party, without such status, does not have the legal right to initiate proceedings unless they act as an authorized representative or holder in due course (!) (!) .

4. The court analyzed the facts and found that the complaint was filed by a third party who was neither the payee nor a holder in due course of the cheque. As such, the complaint lacked the necessary legal standing (!) .

5. The court distinguished the facts of this case from other cases where the complaint was filed by a person with proper authority or legal standing, emphasizing that mere indirect involvement or contractual relationships do not confer locus standi to file a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act (!) .

6. The court noted that while the trial court initially raised a question regarding the complainant's authority, it ultimately proceeded to summon the accused without adequately addressing the lack of locus standi. This oversight was deemed a procedural irregularity (!) (!) .

7. Consequently, the court held that the complaint filed by the third party was not maintainable and that the order summoning the accused was unjustified. The impugned order was therefore quashed (!) .

8. The revision was allowed, and the earlier order was set aside, emphasizing that only parties with proper legal standing—payees or holders in due course—may initiate proceedings under the Act (!) .

9. The decision underscores the importance of establishing legal standing before filing a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act and clarifies that third-party complaints are generally impermissible unless the third party qualifies as a holder in due course or acts with proper authorization (!) (!) .

10. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly (!) .

These points collectively reflect the court’s reasoning and conclusion that the complaint filed by a third party lacking the requisite legal standing was invalid, leading to the quashing of the order summoning the accused.