2018 (10) TMI 1897 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of private complaint - Registration of case and issuance of summons - argument of petitioner is that the complaint is filed by the General Power of Attorney Holder, as such, the private complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C is not maintainable - offences punishable under Sections 500, 501, 502 of IPC - HELD THAT - In the instant case, the private complaint filed clearly go to show that in the beginning paragraph i.e., in Paragraph No. 3 itself, the complainant has stated that he being the member of the Parliament and present President of J.D(S) Party in Karnataka, it is practically not possible and difficult for him to be present in the Court on all the dates of hearing, so as to assist, as such, he is being duly represented by a General Power of Attorney holder on his behalf to prosecute the case and he has been duly instructed, aware of the facts of the case in hand. Thus, the petition in the opening paragraph itself clearly mentions not only the fact that the Power of Attorney holder has been specifically instructed and authorized to institute the complaint but also he has the knowledge of the facts of the case. In the instant case, the General Power of Attorney, a copy of which is produced for reference during the course of argument shows that the executant of the Power of Attorney i.e., Sri. H.D. Kumaraswamy has stated that he is being aggrieved by the alleged act of the accused for which he intended to file a private complaint against the office bearers of a particular association and also publishers mentioned in the pamphlets. It is because of his pre occupation and inability to appear personally in the Court and to conduct the case, he is appointing Sri. K.T. Dhanukumar as his General Power of Attorney holder. Thereafter, he has prescribed as to what powers the Power of Attorney Holder has got to exercise on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that Sri. H.D. Kumaraswamy, in whose name the Power of Attorney has instituted the complaint in question has authorized the Power of Attorney to institute the present complaint and to prosecute the accused on his behalf - in view of there being no bar under Section 199 Cr.P.C for filing of petition through the Power of Attorney, in the instant case the Power of Attorney having clearly stated that not only he has been instructed by Sri. H.D. Kumaraswamy, to file a complaint on his behalf and to prosecute it and also the Power of Attorney clearly stating that he is aware of the facts of the case in hand, it cannot be said that he ought not to have instituted a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 200, 501 and 502 of IPC. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order for registration of case and issuance of summons based on private complaint filed by General Power of Attorney Holder under Sections 500, 501, 502 of IPC. Maintainability of the private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C by the General Power of Attorney Holder.

Analysis:
The petitioner, accused No. 2, challenged the order for registration of the case and issuance of summons based on a private complaint filed by the General Power of Attorney Holder under Sections 500, 501, 502 of IPC. The argument raised was that since the General Power of Attorney Holder lacks personal knowledge of the alleged defamation, he is not competent to file the private complaint. Reference was made to the judgment in Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha regarding who should provide evidence involving personal knowledge, emphasizing the limitations of the Attorney-Holder's role in such matters.

The petitioner's counsel also relied on the judgment in A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra, which clarified the legal competence of filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act through a Power of Attorney. The judgment outlined the conditions under which the Power of Attorney Holder can depose and verify the contents of the complaint. It highlighted the necessity for the Power of Attorney Holder to have witnessed the transaction or possess due knowledge regarding it to be a competent witness.

In response, the respondents' counsel cited the judgment in John Thomas v. Dr. K. Jagadeesan, where the Hon'ble Apex Court clarified that under Section 199 of Cr.P.C, the complainant need not necessarily be the defamed person himself. The case emphasized that even if the defamatory imputations were not directly against the person, if there are reasons to feel hurt, the person has the standing to file a complaint. The General Power of Attorney presented in the instant case showed that the executant was aggrieved by the accused's actions, authorizing the Power of Attorney Holder to file the complaint on his behalf.

The Court found that the General Power of Attorney Holder was duly instructed and aware of the facts of the case, authorized by the executant to institute the complaint and prosecute the accused. The Court noted that there was no bar under Section 199 Cr.P.C for filing a petition through a Power of Attorney, especially when the Power of Attorney clearly stated his authorization and awareness of the case facts. It was established that the Power of Attorney's sworn statement was to initiate criminal proceedings, and the trial court would have stages for the accused to present contentions and evidence.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition challenging the order for registration of the case and issuance of summons, finding it devoid of merit based on the legal provisions and the specific circumstances of the case.