R. Anand vs CIBI Nitting Mills

K. Mohan Ram, J.—The petitioner in the above criminal original petition is facing trial for an alleged offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act in C.C. No. 83 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate I, Tirupur.

The petitioner is seeking quashing of all further proceedings in C.C. No. 83 of 2002. In the complaint filed by the respondent, it is alleged that

the petitioner issued the following cheques bearing Nos. 202951, 202952, 202953, 202954 dated 25.10.2001, 30.10.2001, 05.11.2001,

10.11.2001 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 1,00,000/-, 1,00,000/- and 90,375/- respectively in favour of the respondent herein towards the amount

due from the petitioner to the respondent/complainant. When the aforesaid cheques were presented for encashment, the said cheques were

returned unpaid with endorsement ""Exceeds Arrangement"". After complying with the statutory requirements, the respondent filed a complaint in his

petition which was taken on file in C.C. No. 83 of 2002. Aggrieved against the same, the above quash petition is filed.

2.1 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint has been filed by the Power of Attorney Agent of the Payee and as such the

above complaint is not maintainable in the light of the decision of this Court reported in 2005 M.L.J (Cri) 642 Vijayalakshmi. Y v. Manickam

Narayanan.

Except the aforesaid submission, no submission is made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. I have considered the aforesaid submissions

made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the allegation in the complaint.

The said contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced in view of the Division Bench of this Court reported in K.

Gopalakrishnan Vs. Karunakaran rep. by the Power of Attorney Holder, . In the said decision, the Division Bench has laid down as under:

In view of the above discussion, we hold that,

(i) With regard to the First Issue, the Complaint even if not signed by the Power of Attorney on behalf of the Complainant but signed in his own

name, is maintainable and not bad in law because it is more procedural than substantive;

(ii) Regarding the Second Issue, though the General Power of Attorney at initial stage fails to produce the deed of Power of Attorney or the

affidavit of the complainant in proof of execution of Power of Attorney, the same can be rectified by producing the same at a subsequent stage of

the proceedings as and when the validity of the Power of Attorney is questioned by the accused and the Court could then be called upon to decide

the genuineness or the validity of the Power of Attorney; and

(iii) In respect of Third Issue, it is not required to record the sworn affidavit of the complainant also on a future date to enable the Court to exercise

its discretion.

Therefore it cannot be contended by the petitioner that the Payee cannot file complaint through his Power of Attorney Agent. For the aforesaid

reason, the above Criminal Original Petition fails and the same is dismissed. Since C.C. No. 83 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate I,

Tiruppur, is pending right from 2002, the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Tiruppur is hereby directed to dispose of the same within a period of four

(4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected Crl.M.P is closed.