TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complaint under section 203 of Cr.P.C. holding therein that the complainant did not have the locus standi to file a complaint is wholly contrary to the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra and another. [ 2013 (9) TMI 948 - SUPREME COURT ] As a consequence to the discussions made herein above, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.5.2012, passed in Complaint Case (C.P.) No. 271 of 2012, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder complaint petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C., is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned court below to proceed with the compla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cheques before the bank, it was returned with an endorsement stop payment . It has been alleged that a legal notice was sent but since no steps were taken by the accused for making payment, a complaint was filed, which was registered as Complaint Case No.271 of 2012. Complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and he was directed to file the original documents. On 20.02.2012, the original documents including power of attorney executed by and on behalf of M/s Prabhu Coke Manufacturing Company appointing the petitioner as its constituted attorney were filed. However, vide order dated 14.5.2012, the complaint was dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the complainant did not have the locus standi to file a complaint on b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Company and not on his personal behalf. It is to be seen in this background as to whether the petitioner had the locus to file the complaint case on behalf of the company. In the case of A.C. Narayanan (supra), considering a similar issue, it was held as follows:- 20. The stand of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2007 is that no complaint can be filed and no cognizance of the complaint can be taken if the complaint is by the power-of-attorney holder, since it is against Section 200 of the Code and deserves to be rejected. There is no dispute that complaint has to be filed by the complainant as contemplated by Section 200 of the Code, but the said section does not create any embargo that the attorney holder or legal represen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 200 of the Code, it is thereafter open to the Magistrate, if he thinks fit, to call upon the complainant to remain present and to examine him as to the facts contained in the affidavit submitted by the complainant in support of his complaint. However, it is a matter of discretion and the Magistrate is not bound to call upon the complainant to remain present before the court and to examine him upon oath for taking decision whether or not to issue process on the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. For the purpose of issuing process under Section 200 of the Code, it is open to the Magistrate to rely upon the verification in the form of affidavit filed by the complainant in support of the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... int in his own name as if he was the complainant, but he can initiate criminal proceedings on behalf of his principal. We also reiterate that where the payee is a proprietary concern, the complaint can be filed: (i) by the proprietor of the proprietary concern, describing himself as the sole proprietor of the payee ; (ii) the proprietary concern, describing itself as a sole proprietary concern, represented by its sole proprietor; and (iii) the proprietor or the proprietary concern represented by the attorney holder under a power of attorney executed by the sole proprietor. Petitioner being the constituted power of attorney holder was aware of the entire act of the accused leading to institution of the complaint case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... support of the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act and the Magistrate is neither mandatorily obliged to call upon the complainant to remain present before the Court, nor to examine the complainant of his witness upon oath for taking the decision whether or not to issue process on the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. (v) The functions under the general power of attorney cannot be delegated to another person without specific clause permitting the same in the power of attorney. Nevertheless, the general power of attorney itself can be cancelled and be given to another person . Thus, in the aforesaid judgment, it has categorically been held that power of attorney holder has a right to file, appear and depose for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
