Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138, 142 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.190, 200 – Cognizance of offence – Complaint filed by the appellant-power of attorney holder and manager of the appellant-firm u/s.138 against respondent no.1 – Order passed to summon, the sole owner of respondent no.1 – Application u/s.482 Cr.P.C. by respondent no.1 seeking quashing of the summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of the complaint case on the ground that complaint filed by Manager on behalf of the appellant-firm rendered defective as there was no specific averment with regard to his knowledge about the transaction in the relevant documents – Application allowed by the High Court – Correctness:
Held: Ordinarily, u/s. 190 Cr.P.C., a Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of an offence upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence – Prior to taking such cognizance, as provided by s. 200 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is required to examine upon oath the complainant and witness present, if any – However, s.142 creates a legal bar on the court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable u/s. 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee, or as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque – On facts, the perusal of the complaint would reveal that complaint has been filed in the name of the firm through Manager and Authority-letter holder, and the cheque, was issued in the name of the firm – Complaint satisfied the requirements of s.142 – Letter of Authority, the affidavit in support of the complaint and the affidavit of evidence u/s.200 Cr.P.C. reveal that the power of attorney holder being the manager of the appellant-firm and the caretaker of its day-to-day business, was well-conversant with the transactions which led to the issuance of the cheque to the appellant-firm and which eventually led to the initiation of the criminal proceedings against respondent No.1 – Sole proprietor of the appellant-firm had duly authorized the Manager to act on its behalf – What can be treated as an explicit averment, cannot be put in a straightjacket but will have to be gathered from the circumstance and manner in which it has been averred and conveyed, based on the facts of each case – Averments made in the documents make it wholly clear that the Manager possessed personal knowledge of the facts of the matter at hand and was well-equipped and duly authorised to initiate criminal proceedings against respondent no.1– As such, peremptory quashing of complaint case by High Court completely unwarranted and that too on incorrect factual basis, on completely perfunctory and erroneous reasoning depicting absence of careful consideration – Interference by the High Court in exercise of its discretionary powers u/s.482 Cr.P.C. not called for – Judgment and order passed by the High Court quashed and set aside – Complaint restored to the file. [Paras 13, 16, 24-28, 32-36]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.