9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 451 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of cheque - the complaints filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. through Power of Attorney holder maintainable or not - HELD THAT - A perusal of the Power of Attorney would reveal that there is a specific mention that Power of Attorney will act on behalf of principal to do or to execute all or any of the acts or things which are mentioned therein including filing of the complaint, engaging lawyers etc. It is mentioned in the Power of Attorney, that the acts done by Attorney holder shall be deemed to have been done by the principal himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and legal representatives and ratified to that effect. There is a mention that the Power of Attorney holder is having knowledge and belief with regard to the transaction of facts and he has verified the contents of the complaints to the said effect. However, it is a question of fact which has to be elicited during the full fledged trial. The petitioners will be given an opportunity of cross-examination to prove the said fact that whether the Power of Attorney holder is having knowledge of facts of the present case or not. They can take advantage of the same and get acquitted. Instead of availing the same, the petitioners herein have filed the present complaints seeking to quash the CCs itself. Admittedly, the complaints are of the year, 2018 and the offence is under Section 138 of the Act. It is a summary trial procedure. The petitioners can proceed with the trial and prove that the cheques were not issued towards legally enforceable debt and that the 2nd respondent obtained the said cheques in dispute under threat and coercion. Instead of doing so, the petitioners filed the present petitions - thus, there are several factual aspects which are to be elicited during full fledged trial. The petitioners failed to establish any ground warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Power of Attorney at the time of filing the complaint. 2. Maintainability of the complaint filed through a Power of Attorney holder. 3. Knowledge and competence of the Power of Attorney holder regarding the facts of the case. 4. Allegations of coercion and threat in obtaining cheques. 5. Procedural compliance under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Power of Attorney at the time of filing the complaint: The petitioners argued that the complaints were filed on 14.05.2015, while the Power of Attorney (GPA) was dated 29.05.2015, making it invalid at the time of filing. The respondent countered that the GPA was actually executed on 29.04.2015, supported by endorsements from the Embassy of India, Washington DC, dated 29.04.2015. The court noted that the discrepancy regarding the date (29.05.2015 or 29.04.2015) is a factual issue to be determined during the trial. The court concluded that the existence of the GPA on the date of filing the complaints cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. Maintainability of the complaint filed through a Power of Attorney holder: The petitioners contended that complaints under Section 200 Cr.P.C. filed through a Power of Attorney holder are not maintainable. However, the court referred to the judgment in A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 11 SCC 790, which allows complaints to be filed through a Power of Attorney holder, provided the holder has personal knowledge of the transaction. The court also cited its own order in Crl.P.No.222 of 2021 and the Karnataka High Court decision in Nagarajappa v. H.D. Kumar Swamy, affirming that such complaints are maintainable. 3. Knowledge and competence of the Power of Attorney holder regarding the facts of the case: The petitioners argued that the Power of Attorney holder did not have knowledge of the facts and was not conversant with the transactions. The court noted that the GPA explicitly authorized the holder to act on behalf of the principal, including filing complaints and engaging lawyers. The complaint also included a verification statement by the Power of Attorney holder affirming knowledge of the facts. The court concluded that whether the holder had sufficient knowledge is a factual question to be determined during the trial, where the petitioners will have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. 4. Allegations of coercion and threat in obtaining cheques: The petitioners claimed that the cheques were obtained under coercion and threat, and there was no legally enforceable debt. The court observed that these are factual issues to be addressed during the trial. The petitioners can present evidence and cross-examine the respondent and witnesses to establish their claims during the trial. 5. Procedural compliance under Section 200 Cr.P.C.: The petitioners argued that the complaints did not comply with Section 200 Cr.P.C. as no affidavit was filed by the Power of Attorney holder. The court found that the respondent had filed a sworn affidavit along with the complaints, fulfilling the requirement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The court also noted that the chief affidavit was filed in March 2019, and the petitioners had the opportunity to cross-examine but instead chose to file these petitions to quash the proceedings. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petitions, concluding that the petitioners failed to establish any grounds warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that the factual issues raised by the petitioners should be addressed during the trial, where they will have the opportunity to present their case and cross-examine witnesses. The interim order was vacated, and all miscellaneous petitions were closed.
|
