A power of attorney holder may file a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act only on behalf of the principal, not in their own name, and must demonstrate knowledge of the transaction.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.

1. Heard Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant in Application u/s 482 No. 23721 of 2024; Sri Saurabh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Lalit Kr. Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 in Application u/s 482 No. 28869 of 2024 as well as Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Application u/s 482 No. 23721 of 2024 has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 3255 of 2016 (Vineeta Goyal vs. Jitendra Kumar Mangla), under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Hari Parvat, District Agra, including the summoning order dated 1.12.2016.

3. Application u/s 482 No. 28869 of 2024 has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

"1. Quash the summoning order dated 22.10.2018 and order dated 16.07.2024 by means of which N.B.W. has been issued against the applicant as well as the entire proceedings of the case No. 602 of 2018 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (Ranveer Singh vs. Jitendra Kumar Mangla) P.S. Hariparvat District Agra pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Agra.

2. Club the proceedings of the two cases belonging to the same transactions i.e. Complaint Case No. 602 of 2018 (Ranveer Singh vs. Jitendra Kumar Mangla) and 912 of 2018 (Ranveer Singh vs. Jitendra Kumar Mangla) and may be tried at one trial."

4. Sri Saurabh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant in Application u/s 482 No. 28869 of 2024, has submitted that the impugned complaint has been filed by the Power of attorney holder in his name, though the complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act can be filed on behalf of the payee or holder in due course of the cheque, not the power of attorney in his name. His second contention is that from the bare perusal of the complaint, it is clear that there is no averment in the complaint that the power of attorney holder had knowledge of the transaction in question. It is also submitted that the transaction means the transfer of money as well as the handing over of the cheque in lieu of payment of that money. It is also submitted that in this case, the father of the complainant was the power of attorney holder, but he filed the complaint in his name instead of filing the same in the name of the payee or holder in due course.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in the Case of A.C. Narayana and another vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2014) 11 SCC 790, paragraphs No. 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, wherein the Apex Court observed that the complaint could be filed by the power of attorney holder on behalf of the payee and not in his name and also that the power of attorney holder must have witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee/holder in due course or possess due knowledge regarding the said transactions.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant in has also relied upon the judgment of the coordinate Bench in M/s Arti Industries vs. State of U.P. Application u/s 482 No. 29906 of 2022; paragraphs No. 22, 23, 24 and also the judgement of the Apex Court in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. IndusInd Bank Ltd. (2005) 2 SCC 217; paragraphs No. 10, 11, 13 & 15.

7. Similarly, Sri Bhuvnesh Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant in Application u/s 482 No. 23721 of 2024, also argued that the power of attorney holder, even if a near relative of the payee, cannot file the complaint unless there is specific averment regarding his personal knowledge about the transaction in question. It is further submitted that merely mentioning in the verification clause that the power of attorney holder has personal knowledge about the fact mentioned in the affidavit of the statement will not be sufficient.

8. Per contra, Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A. for the State, has heavily relied upon paragraph No.21 of the judgement in A.C. Narayan (supra) and admitted the fact that the power of attorney holder cannot file a complaint i