High CourtsSingle Bench(2003) 11 MP CK 0004

Ramesh vs Ganeshchandra and Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 27 November 2003 · Citation: (2004) 4 BC 475

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.L. Kochar, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
M. Cr. C. No. 2150 of 2003

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 375 words

S.L. Kochar, J.—This petition u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant mainly on the ground that the complaint was filed by the power of attorney holder who is not the payee or holder of cheque in due course. Therefore, the complaint filed by the power of attorney is not maintainable.

2.

The learned Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on S.P. Sampathy Vs. Smt. Manju Gupta and Another, On the other hand, the contention of the learned Counsel for the non-applicant/complainant is that as per the Power of Attorney Act and the judgment rendered by M.P. High Court (Gwalior Bench) In Krishna Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar , the complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Action be presented by the person holding power of attorney, payee or the holder of the cheque, Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment rendered in M.M.T.C. Ltd. and Another Vs. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. and Another, and submitted that in the case in hand, though the complaint was filed by the holder of power of attorney on behalf of the complainant, but later on this defect has been cured. The complainant himself has appeared and signed on the complaint. This was done in pursuance of the re visional order passed by the lower Revisional Court. In MMTC Ltd. (supra) the Supreme Court has held that though the complaint was filed on behalf of the company who was the holder of the cheque by unauthorised person, but the same defect is curable and on this account, the complaint cannot be quashed.

3.

Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties this Court is of the view that in view of the provisions of Power of Attorney Act, the complaint can be presented by the holder of Power of Attorney, but for the purpose of further prosecution i.e. u/s 200 and 202, the presence of the complainant is essential and if he appears and gives statement before the Court, then there is no defect in filing the complaint and the same shall be treated as cured.

4.

In this view of the matter, as discussed above, there is no substance in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed.