Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DR. VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J
SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3514/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D S SIVADARSHAN
For the Respondents: VENKAT CHALLA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
Authorized representatives may file complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act, validly addressing technical issues regarding representation without negating the substantive claim.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138, 139 and 142 - Quashing of proceedings - Petitioners sought to quash proceedings for alleged non-maintainability due to Respondent not being payee - Court upheld that a complaint under Section 138 can be effectively filed by an authorized representative, emphasizing complaint filed by Managing Partner of the company served validity - Court clarified that technicalities cannot negate legitimate claims. (Paras 3, 4, 10)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Inherent Powers - High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 is to prevent abuse of legal process and secure ends of justice; it does not function as a Court of Appeal - Misinterpretations of status in filing do not warrant quashing. (Paras 6, 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
Petition filed to quash proceedings of a statutory complaint initiated by the complainant against the accused for the dishonor of cheques, highlighting jurisdictional issues and the scope of representative filing under the N.I. Act.
Findings of Court:
Court held that complaint is maintainable and must proceed as the representative had authority, resolving the issue of technical discrepancies raised by the accused.
Issues: Whether the complaint is maintainable given the circumstances surrounding filing and authorisation concerning N.I. Act provisions?
Ratio Decidendi: The presence of statutory authority in filing supports its validity; technical formats in filings should not impede substantive justice.
Result: The Criminal Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. seeking to quash proceedings under n.i. act. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments on maintainability due to representation issues. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's view on jurisdiction and procedural continuance. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. final determination on the validity of the complaint. (Para 10) |
| 5. dismissal of the petition. (Para 11) |
ORDER
The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 1 has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.202 of 2019 on the file of the for short „ Cr.P.C ‟
Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur, which was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 138 , 139 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 , [for short „NI Act‟]
2. Heard Sri Avinash Desai, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Venkat Challa, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the present complaint, which has been filed by Respondent No.2, who is neither payee nor holder of the subject cheque, is not maintainable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Learned counsel would further submit that the payee of the subject cheque neither issued any statutory notice nor filed any complaint and hence, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is an abuse of process of law. Learned counsel would submit that, Respondent No.2 has no locus standi and is not entitled to file the present complaint against the Petitioners. Learned counsel would finally submit that there is no legally enforceable debt against the Petitioners. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in National Small Industries Corporation Limited vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others, [(2009) 1 SCC 407]
4. Contrasting the same, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that the exemption under Section 200(a) Cr.P.C can be given to a public servant only. Learned counsel would further submit that there is no dispute about the issuance of the subject cheque by the Petitioners. It is submitted the present complaint has been filed by Respondent No.2, who is the Managing Partner of the Complainant-Company and as such, the same is maintainable under law. Learned counsel would finally submit prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners and, as such, at the threshold, the case against the Petitioners cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in TRL Krosaki Refractories Limited vs. SMS Asia Private Limited and another , [(2022) 7 SCC 612], wherein, it was held as under:
“In that view, the position that would emerge is that when a company is the payee of the cheque based on which a complaint is filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the complainant necessarily should be the Company which would be represented by an employee who is authorized. Primafacie, in such a situation the indication in the complaint and the sworn statement (either orally or by affidavit) to the effect that the complainant (Company) is represented by an authorized person who has knowledge, would be sufficient. The employment of the terms “specific assertion as to the knowledge of the power of attorney holder” and such assertion about knowledge should be “said explicitly” as stated in A.C. Narayanan (supra) cannot be understood to mean that the assertion should be in any particular manner, much less only in the manner understood by the accused in the case. All that is necessary is to demonstrate before the learned Magistrate that the complaint filed is in the name of the “payee” and if the person who is prosecuting the complaint is different from the payee, the authorisation therefor and that the contents of th
