9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the complaint filed u/s 142(a) of the NI Act through a Power of Attorney. 2. Whether the complaint is inherently improbable and does not make out an offence u/s 138 of the NI Act. 3. Whether the complaint constitutes an abuse of the process of law. Summary: Issue (a): Maintainability of the Complaint Filed Through Power of Attorney The complaint was filed by the respondent through her husband, acting as her Power of Attorney. The petitioner argued that the complaint was not maintainable as the Power of Attorney document was not filed with the complaint, and the MM took cognizance without it. The court referred to judgments from the Madras High Court in *Ruby Leather Exports* and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in *Swastik Coaters Pvt. Ltd.*, which held that a complaint u/s 142(a) of the NI Act can be filed through a Power of Attorney, but the document must be produced at the time of taking cognizance. Since the Power of Attorney was not filed along with the complaint, the summoning order was invalid. Therefore, Issue (a) was resolved in favor of the petitioner. Issue (b): Improbability of the Complaint The petitioner contended that the complaint was improbable given the ongoing disputes between the parties. The court noted that the cheques were allegedly issued in June 2000 but were post-dated to June 2003, which seemed improbable given the bitter relationship between the parties. The court found the complainant's version of events, including the issuance of post-dated cheques for a loan with high-interest rates, to be inherently absurd and improbable. Thus, Issue (b) was resolved in favor of the petitioner, indicating that no offence u/s 138 of the NI Act was made out. Issue (c): Abuse of Process of Law The court observed that the complaint was filed as a counterblast to the matrimonial disputes between the parties and involved willful suppression of material facts. The timing and nature of the complaint suggested it was maliciously instituted. The court emphasized that it could interfere u/s 482 Cr. P.C. to prevent misuse of the process of law. Therefore, Issue (c) was resolved in favor of the petitioner, indicating that the complaint constituted an abuse of the process of law. Conclusion: The court quashed Complaint Case Nos. 177/2003, 178/2003, 179/2003, 180/2003, the summoning order dated 13th November 2003, and all subsequent proceedings. The petitions were allowed with costs of Rs. 5,000 each, to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within four weeks.
|
