2019 (4) TMI 227 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of initiation of the complaint by the Special Power of Attorney of Sairabee - Held that - The decision of this Court in A.C. Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2015 (4) TMI 847 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA wherein this Court has clearly held that a complaint filed by the power of attorney would be maintainable in law. If that is so the initial complaint filed by the appellant on behalf of Sairabee as the complainant would not be invalid in law as held by the High Court in the order under challenge. After the death of Sairabee the application filed by the appellant was to continue the criminal prosecution as the legal heir of the deceased Sairabee the High Court seems to have understood this application to be for continuance of the criminal prosecution in his capacity as a Power of Attorney. The High Court therefore ought to have allowed the continuance of the proceedings as prayed by the appellant and ought not to have quashed the proceedings as it has been done - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of complaint filed by Special Power of Attorney under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 IPC.
2. Legitimacy of continuing prosecution by legal heir after the death of the complainant.
3. High Court's decision to quash proceedings against accused-respondents.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 IPC through a Special Power of Attorney of the deceased complainant. The High Court quashed the proceedings, deeming the initiation of the complaint by the Power of Attorney as invalid.

2. After the death of the complainant, the appellant, as the legal heir, sought to continue the prosecution. The High Court held that the continuation by the Power of Attorney post the complainant's death was impermissible. However, the Supreme Court referred to precedent in A.C. Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra, establishing the maintainability of a complaint filed by a Power of Attorney. The Court clarified that the appellant's application was to continue the prosecution as the legal heir, not as a Power of Attorney. The Court emphasized the competence of a legal heir to pursue a criminal complaint, disagreeing with the High Court's decision.

3. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, directing the trial against the accused-respondent to resume from the point where it was halted by the High Court's order. The appeal was allowed, reinstating the trial proceedings.