Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order quashing a cheque-dishonour complaint filed by a proprietary firm through its manager holding a letter of authority. The complaint was in the payee's name, and the letter of authority and affidavits sufficiently asserted the manager's authority and personal knowledge; any dispute on authorisation or knowledge is a matter for trial, not a ground for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Issues
- Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed in the name of the payee firm through its manager, as holder of a letter of authority from the sole proprietor, satisfied Section 142 of the Act.
- Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the summoning order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the authority holder's personal knowledge of the transaction was not specifically pleaded.
Provisions considered
- Section 142(1)(a), Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881The bar on cognizance except on a written complaint by the payee or holder in due course is met when the complaint is in the payee's name; the complaint was filed in the name of the payee firm through its manager and the cheque was issued in that firm's name, so the requirement was satisfied. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 26)
- Section 200, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Magistrate may issue process on the complaint, documents and the complainant's affidavit and has discretion whether to examine the complainant; the manager's affidavit of evidence in lieu of a sworn statement asserted his authority and knowledge and supported the summoning order. (¶¶ 13, 15, 17, 18, 31, 32)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Inherent power is to be exercised sparingly and not to scuttle a prosecution; quashing at the threshold on the question of authorisation and knowledge, which is an issue for trial, was unwarranted and rested on an incorrect factual basis. (¶¶ 21, 33, 34, 35)
Held
- Section 142 of the NI Act is satisfied if the complaint is in the name of the payee; the payee may be represented by an authorised employee or power of attorney holder, but the attorney cannot file in his own name as if he were the complainant. (¶¶ 13, 15, 16, 17, 26)
- A power of attorney holder may file, depose and verify the complaint for the purpose of issue of process, provided he witnessed the transaction or has due knowledge of it, and such knowledge should be asserted in the complaint; whether the Magistrate examines the complainant before issuing process is discretionary. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
- Following TRL Krosaki Refractories, what amounts to an explicit averment of authority and knowledge cannot be put in a straitjacket and is to be gathered from the manner in which it is conveyed on the facts; it is enough to show the Magistrate that the complaint is in the payee's name and that the person prosecuting it is authorised and has knowledge of its contents. (¶¶ 20, 21, 33)
- Any serious dispute that the person prosecuting the complaint lacked authority or knowledge is for the accused to establish at trial; dismissing or quashing the complaint at the threshold on that ground is not justified. (¶¶ 21, 33)
- Read together, the sole proprietor's letter of authority, the verifying affidavit and the affidavit of evidence under Section 200 Cr.P.C. categorically stated that the manager ran the firm's day-to-day affairs, was conversant with its transactions and was authorised to file the complaint, so the High Court's finding that his personal knowledge was not pleaded was factually incorrect. (¶¶ 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33)
- Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be used sparingly and cautiously and not to interfere with the jurisdiction of lower courts or scuttle a prosecution; the High Court's quashing was perfunctory and erroneous. (¶¶ 34, 35)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's order quashing the summoning order and complaint set aside; the complaint restored to the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, Bulandshahar, to be decided on its merits; pending applications disposed of.