1.This petition is filed under S.482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceedings in PCR No. 1111/99 (CC No. 30083/2000) on the file of the XII, Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore.

2. The brief facts for consideration are as follows : -

3. A cheque for a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs issued by Vyalikaval House Building Co - operative Society Limited, Bangalore, bearing signatures of the petitioners issued to the respondent - Bangalore District and Bangalore Rural District Co - operative Central Bank Limited, Bangalore, came to be dishonoured with an endorsement - Insufficient funds. As such, the payee of the cheque (respondent), and complying with the requirements of issue of notice for settlement, lodged a complaint under S. 200, Cr. P.C. against the petitioners seeking prosecution for an offence punishable under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The learned Magistrate after taking the cognizance, recorded the sworn statement of one Sri V. Thyagaraja, Manager of the payee - Bank and by the order dated 22-1-2000, issued process against the petitioners.

4. Challenging the action of taking cognizance and issue of process, the petitioners approached the learned Sessions Judge in Crl. R.P. 150/2000. The learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the petition and hence the present criminal petition under S. 482, Cr. P.C.

5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the payee of the dishonoured cheque is an incorporeal person. It is contended that under S.142 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the Court can take cognizance of the offence punishable under the Act, only upon the receipt of a complaint by the payee of the cheque or the holder in due course. It is contended that from the averments made in the complaint, the payee - Bank had authorised its Managing Director to present the complaint. But the complaint is signed and presented by one V. Thyagaraja, stated to be the Manager of the payee - Bank. It is contended that since the Manager is an unauthorised person as per the averments in the complaint itself, presentation of such complaint, taking cognizance of the same and ordering the registration of a case and issuing process, are all illegal and unsustainable in law.

6. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon the following pronouncements : -

7. M/s. Ruby Leather Exports v. K. Venu Rep. Vandana Chemicals etc. reported in 1994 (1) Crimes, 820 (Madras High Court).

8. M/s. Satish and Company v. M/s. S. R. Traders, reported in 1998 CriLJ 419 (Andhra Pradesh High Court).

9. M/s. Credential Finance Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1999 CriLJ. 1032 (Bombay High Court).

10. On the other hand, arguing in support of the action, Counsel for the respondent contended that no doubt under the bye - laws of the respondent - Bank and the authorisation, it is the Managing Director who is authorised to file the complaint. But since the Managing Director himself has authorised the present Manager, Sri V Thyagaraja by an authorisation letter dated 19-11-1999 to file the complaint, there is no illegality in filing of the complaint. In this regard, he has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of P.A. Verghese v. Campion Business Associates Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1998 (2) Crimes 85 : 1997 CriLJ 4208.

11. I have heard the learned counsels in detail and perused the records of the case as well as the decisions relied upon by both the sides.

12. It is to be noted that the word 'complainant' is not defined in the Criminal Procedure Code. It is also well settled that any person can set the law in motion except in case where the statute has specifically provided otherwise. The word person as defined in Indian Penal Code includes "any company or association or body of person, whether incorporated or not." Under 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act : "no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under S. 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course." It is