JUDGMENT

 L. S. PIRZADA, J.

1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners - original accused under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS, 2023”) for quashing of the complaint filed by respondent No.2 - original complainant being Criminal Case No.3558 of 2024, pending before the learned 16th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat.

2. The factual matrix, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that one private complaint being Criminal Case No.3558 of 2024 has been given by one - Mr.Amit Nagindas Kapadia as a power of attorney holder of Jalaram Jari Industries, Surat against the accused - United Petrofar Limited and other Directors for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the “N.I. Act”).

2.1. As per the case of the original complainant before the learned trial Court, pursuant to the transaction taken place between the original complainant and the original accused, the accused have invited the complainant to join their business and if they invest some amount, they will get more profit and pursuant to that, the complainant has given an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- to the accused on 26.06.2023 and against that, on 27.06.2023, the accused have given the goods worth Rs.21,23,115/- and thereafter, again the accused told the complainant that they have huge quantity of goods and they will again send some goods and complainant will get more profit and then again, the complainant has given Rs.50,00,000/- by cheque of Jalaram Jari Industries firm on 28.06.2023 but, pursuant to the same, no delivery has been given by the accused persons and subsequently, a credit note has been issued by the accused in the name of the complainant firm on 26.07.2023 for Rs.56,616.40. Subsequently, the amount has been duped and pursuant to that, the accused have issued 8 cheques in favour of the complainant firm, amounting to Rs.74,64,634/- and the said cheques were presented by the complainant - bank its account but, the same were returned unpaid on 08.12.2023. Subsequently, the complainant has given notice to the accused through advocate on 16.12.2023. The said notice was duly served to the accused on 18.12.2023 but, they have not paid heed to the notice and subsequently, after receipt of the notice, they have paid Rs.11,64,634/- and rest of the amount of Rs.63,00,000/- was not paid. Hence, the complaint came to be filed on 12.01.2024 against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by Mr.Amit Nagindas Kapadia as a power of attorney holder of Jalaram Jari Industries.

2.2. The present petition has been preferred by the accused for quashment of the criminal complaint mainly on the ground that the complaint itself is not maintainable as it has not been filed by the authorized person or a power of attorney holder.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Kunal S. Shah for the petitioners submitted that complaint filed against the accused persons is false, frivolous and vexatious because there is a contradiction between the facts described by the complainant and in the complaint, no specific averment has been made regarding how the power of attorney holder is authorized to maintain the complaint. It is submitted that if the complaint and the other documents are accepted even on its face value, the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is not maintainable. It is submitted that looking to the GST Certificate of the complainant firm, which has been produced along with the complaint, it appears that the said firm is a proprietary firm and the proprietor is one Mr.Sanjaykumar Dhansukhlal Jariwala and looking into the compliant, the power of attorney has not been given by Mr.Sanjaykumar Dhansukhlal Jariwala to Mr.Amit Nagindas Kapadia and, therefore, he cannot file a complaint on the behalf of the proprietary firm and considering the above admitted documents, the complaint is not maintainable. Further, it is submi