2021 (2) TMI 754 - HC - Indian Laws

Right on power of attorney (POA) holder - Maintainability of a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code at the behest of the original complainant - HELD THAT - The original complainant, Mr. Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy, has filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code against respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein for the aforesaid offences through his power of attorney holder, Mr. Jakka Kiran Reddy. In the said complaint, it is specifically mentioned that the power of attorney holder is well acquainted with the facts of the case and he has been duly authorized by the original complainant to file the complaint at his behest. A copy of the power of attorney dated 13.12.2019 executed by the said Mr. Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy is also filed. In the said power of attorney, it is specifically mentioned that the original complainant is living in Bangkok, Thailand, being pre-occupied to pursue the professional badminton training of his daughter, Miss. Jakka Vaishnavi Reddy, who represents India in Badminton on the International Circuit, was being ranked as Junior World No.2, as such, he will not be in a position to travel to Hyderabad, thereof as such, he has appointed Mr. Jakka Kiran Reddy as his power of attorney holder to file complaints, civil proceedings etc. It is also mentioned in the power of attorney that he does hereby agree to ratify and confirm all the acts and deeds done by his attorney in his name and on his behalf in respect to all the Courts of India, to be constituted as acts and deeds done by him as if personally present. Said facts would reveal that the petitioner herein has executed the above said power of attorney on 13.12.2019 to do certain acts on his behalf including filing of complaints. In the complaint, power of attorney holder has specifically mentioned that he is well acquainted with the facts of the case and he has been authorized by the complainant to file the complaint on his behalf. A perusal of the record would also reveal that the petitioner herein has filed a memo dated 18.12.2020 before the Sessions Court stating that the power of attorney holder can maintain a private complaint. Though, the said memo was filed, the Sessions Court has returned the complaint with the above said endorsement - on perusal of the record including the contents of power of attorney and the complaint, this Court is of the view that power of attorney holder can maintain a private complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of a complaint filed by a Power of Attorney Holder under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Cognizance of the complaint under Sections of the Companies Act, 1956 and 2013, as well as IPC.

Issue 1: Maintainability of Complaint by Power of Attorney Holder:

The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code against respondents for various offences under the Companies Act and IPC through a Power of Attorney Holder. The Sessions Court returned the complaint citing lack of maintainability. The petitioner argued that as per the Supreme Court's decision in A.C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra, a Power of Attorney Holder can file a complaint under Section 200 of the Code. The petitioner also referenced a Karnataka High Court judgment supporting this view. The High Court analyzed the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the Karnataka High Court and concluded that a Power of Attorney Holder can maintain a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code. The Court emphasized that the power of attorney holder must have knowledge of the transaction and be authorized by the original complainant. As the power of attorney holder in this case was well acquainted with the facts and duly authorized, the High Court allowed the petition and directed the Sessions Court to take cognizance of the complaint.

Issue 2: Cognizance of the Complaint under Companies Act and IPC:

The complaint filed by the petitioner under Sections of the Companies Act, 1956 and 2013, as well as various sections of the IPC, was initially returned by the Sessions Court questioning the locus standi of the Power of Attorney Holder. The petitioner argued that the power of attorney holder had the authority to file the complaint on behalf of the original complainant, who was unable to do so personally due to being abroad for his daughter's professional commitments. The High Court examined the details of the power of attorney and the complaint, noting that the power of attorney holder was authorized to act on behalf of the complainant. Relying on the legal precedents established by the Supreme Court and the Karnataka High Court, the High Court held that the complaint was maintainable and directed the Sessions Court to take cognizance of the complaint and proceed with further legal actions as per the law.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the Criminal Petition, directing the Sessions Court to consider the complaint filed by the petitioner through the Power of Attorney Holder and proceed with the case accordingly. The judgment clarified the maintainability of complaints filed by power of attorney holders under Section 200 of the Code and emphasized the importance of authorization and knowledge of the transaction for such filings.