2017 (10) TMI 905 - HC - Indian Laws

Right of power of attorney - offence under NI Act - Held that - Power of attorney holder has a right to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issuance of process for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant thus seems to have personal knowledge of the transaction and as has been stated above, he was representing the company being the constituted power of attorney holder and therefore the order of the learned court below dismissing the complaint under section 203 of Cr.P.C. holding therein that the complainant did not have the locus standi to file a complaint is wholly contrary to the principles of law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of A.C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra and another. 2013 (9) TMI 948 - SUPREME COURT As a consequence to the discussions made herein above, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.5.2012, passed in Complaint Case (C.P.) No. 271 of 2012, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder complaint petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C., is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned court below to proceed with the complaint case instituted by the petitioner in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Locus standi of the petitioner to file a complaint on behalf of the company.

Analysis:
The petitioner, as the constituted power of attorney holder of a company, filed a complaint against accused persons for non-payment of dues. The complaint was dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, on the ground that the petitioner lacked locus standi to file the complaint on behalf of the company. The petitioner argued that he was authorized by the company to file the complaint and referred to a Supreme Court judgment supporting the authority of power of attorney holders to initiate legal proceedings on behalf of the grantor. The complaint clearly stated that it was filed by the petitioner as the authorized agent of the company, not in his personal capacity.

The court examined the legal position regarding power of attorney holders filing complaints and clarified that a power of attorney holder can depose and verify on oath to prove the contents of the complaint if they have witnessed the transactions or possess knowledge about them. The court emphasized the need for explicit assertion about the attorney holder's knowledge in the complaint. It was held that the power of attorney holder can initiate criminal proceedings on behalf of the principal but cannot file a complaint in their own name. The court also highlighted that the functions under a general power of attorney cannot be delegated without specific permission and that the power of attorney itself can be canceled and given to another person.

In light of the legal principles established by the Supreme Court and the clarification regarding the rights and limitations of power of attorney holders, the High Court allowed the application, setting aside the order dismissing the complaint and remitting the matter back to the lower court for further proceedings. The decision was based on the petitioner's valid authority as the power of attorney holder to represent the company in filing the complaint, contrary to the lower court's ruling on locus standi.