HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3471 / 2017

Prakesh Singh S/o Shiv Singh, By Caste Mali Proprietor M/s Sojat

Lines Company Mines, Resident of Sojat Road, Tehsil Sojat District

Pali.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Rajasthan.

2. Branch Manager, The Pali Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, Branch

Sojat City Tehsil Sojat City District Pali.

----Respondents

and

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3467 / 2017

Prakesh Singh S/o Shiv Singh, By Caste Mali Proprietor M/s Sojat

Lines Company Mines, Resident of Sojat Road, Tehsil Sojat District

Pali.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Rajasthan

2. Branch Manager, the Pali Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, Branch

Sojat City Tehsil Sojat City District Pali.

----Respondents

_____________________________________________________

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit PP.

_____________________________________________________

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Order

12/10/2017

1.

Petitioner has preferred these revisions petitions aggrieved

by order dated 23.08.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate Sojat

City whereby the application filed by the petitioner for dropping

the proceedings was rejected and against order dated 8.09.2017

passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sojat, District

Pali, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was

rejected.

(2 of 3)

[CRLMP-3471/2017]

2.

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that it was not

established before the court below that the person who filed the

complaint was authorized by the Pali Central Co-operative Bank

Pvt. Ltd., to file the complaint.

3.

It is also contended that after the demise of the person, who

filed the complaint, another person appeared before the court and

gave evidence on behalf of the complainant. Petitioner moved an

application before the court below that the proceedings cannot be

continued as the person who has filed the complaint was not

authorized to file the complaint and there was no averment in the

complaint that the person who stated himself to be Branch

Manager was competent to file the complaint.

4.

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 2011

CRI.L.J.1912 Milind Shripad Chandurkar vs. Kalim M. Khan

& Anr., wherein the Apex Court held that if a complaint is filed

and the complainant claims himself to be the sole proprietor of

firm, evidence has to be produced to establish that he was sole

proprietor. If he does not satisfy the criteria of being payee of

cheque, complaint is not maintainable.

5.

Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on 2010

Law Suit (Bombay) 2198, VPK Urban Co-operative Credit

Society Ltd. vs. Shaikh Recnoddin Mohammed & Anr.,

wherein the Bombay High Court held that if a resolution of co-

operative society authorizing the complainant to file complaint is

not produced, the complaint is not maintainable.

6.

I have considered the contentions The complaint under

Section 138 of N.I. Act was filed way back in the year 2006. The

(3 of 3)

[CRLMP-3471/2017]

petitioner has moved the application after the matter was fixed for

examining the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Counsel for the

petitioner has taken four adjournments for examination of the

petitioner and thereafter he moved this application. The court

below has rejected the application and imposed a cost of

Rs.3,000/-. Petitioner herein preferred a revision petition

aggrieved by the said order which also stands dismissed by the

impugned order 8.09.2017. The court below observed that the

complaint was signed by Bhanwar Lal as Bank Manager and the

complainant bears the official seal of Branch Manager. The court,

therefore, came to th