9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent 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. - CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2837, 2849 & 3274 OF 2019 - - - Dated:- 5-3-2021 - HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN Petitioner Advocate : Subhani S.M. Respondent Advocate : Public Prosecutor TG COMMON ORDER: These Criminal Petitions are filed to quash the proceedings in CC.Nos.489 of 2018, 435 of 2018 and 434 of 2018, pend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2014 with Police, CCS, Team-I, Hyderabad, who inturn registered a case in Cr.No.126 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506 IPC against the petitioners herein. After completion of investigation, the Police have filed final report on 22.05.2014 treating it as FIR submitted as Action dropped . By referring to the said final report, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Police have filed the said final report by specifically mentioning that the 2nd respondent and the 2nd petitioner went to CCS, DD office and stated that they have settled the matter outside the Court and submitted a written compromise letter and they have requested to drop further action in the case. By referring the same, the Investigating Officer in Cr.No.126 of 2014 filed final report stating as Action Dropped . 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to the contents of the complaint in the present CCs would submit that though the 2nd petitioner and the 2nd respondent have settled the matter outside the Court and though the Police have filed final report, with the very same allegations by taking the advantage of the possession of the cheques of the petitioners, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2nd respondent would submit that the said dispute is with regard to purchase of the land admeasuring Ac.13-00 situated at Warangal District and obtaining an amount of ₹ 1.83 crores from the 2nd respondent by the 2nd petitioner herein. The said issue was settled between the parties and they have informed the Investigating Officer in Cr.No.126 of 2014 that the matter has been settled between the parties. The cheque numbers mentioned in the said final report are different from the cheque numbers in the present three complaints. 10. According to the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, the sworn statement as required under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was filed along with the complaints itself. On verification of the same, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 138 of the Act against the petitioners herein. He would further submit that the petitioners herein without verifying the same in the sworn affidavit in the above said CCs raised that objection which is not a substantial objection. Thus, there are several factual aspects to be elicited during trial. According to him, the petitioners instead of proceeding with the trial, approached this Court by way o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29.04.2015 itself. In the last paragraph of the said document, the word May is typed. By referring to the same, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the same was executed on 29.05.2015. Whether the said Power of Attorney was executed on 29.05.2015 or 29.04.2015 is a question of fact to be elicited during the trial. It is also relevant to note that the petitioners will be given an opportunity of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. They can avail the said opportunity to prove that there is no Power of Attorney as on the date of filing of the complaints on 14.05.2015 and instead of availing the said opportunity, the petitioners herein filed the present petitions to quash the proceedings in CCs itself. Therefore, according to this Court, on the said ground, the proceedings in the complaints cannot be quashed in exercise of power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 15. With regard to other contentions raised by the petitioners that the complaints filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. through Power of Attorney holder are not maintainable are concerned, this Court vide order dt.05.02.2021 in Crl.P.No.222 of 2021, by referring to the principle laid down by a th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the view that if complaint is filed for and on behalf of payee or holder in due course, that is good enough compliance with Section 142 of N.I. Act. 17. Following the said principle held by the Apex Court in A.C. Narayanan1, the Karnataka High Court in Nagarajappa2 held that power of attorney holder can maintain a private complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code. In the said case, a complaint was filed by the original complainant through his General Power of Attorney Holder for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of IPC. 18. The Karnataka High Court applying the principle laid down by the Apex Court in A.C. Narayanan and other judgments held that in view of the fact that there being no power under Section 199 of the Code for filing a petition through power of attorney holder, the complaint filed by the original complainant through power of attorney holder is maintainable. 19. Following the said principle in Crl.P.No.222 of 2021, this Court held that a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C filed through Power of Attorney holder can be maintained. In view of the said authoritative law, the contention of the petitioners that the complaints filed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent petitions seeking to quash the present proceedings and the same is not sustainable. 25. The 2nd respondent has filed sworn affidavit along with complaints as required under Section 200 Cr.P.C. In view of the same, the said contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant has not filed affidavit as required under Section 200 Cr.P.C is also not sustainable. 26. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the chief affidavit was filed in March, 2019. Even then, instead of proceeding with the cross-examination, the petitioners herein filed the present petitions with a view to drag on the matter on one pretext or the other. 27. 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, as discussed supra, there are several factual aspects which are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
