KALLINATH Vs. VEERAPPA ALIAS VEERANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed to quash the proceedings in CC No. 71/1999 on the file of the Court of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, on the basis of ratio laid down in S. P. Sampathy v. Manju Gupta and another, 2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 619 (A. P.), where a Division Bench of this Court held that a complaint signed by a general power of attorney of the payee is not maintainable.

(2.) IST respondent in this case M/s. Lloyd Steel industries Ltd. is the complainant. The complaint shows it bears the stamp of "m/s. Lloyd Steel Industries Limited," and on its behalf some body affixed his signature. Complainant being a company registered under the provision of the Companies Act. is only an artificial person. So it cannot sign and some body has to sign and act on its behalf. The question whether the person who affixed signature to the complaint on its behalf was duly authorised or not by M/s. Lloyd Steel Industries Ltd. , has to be decided at the time of trial and cannot be gone into in proceedings filed under Section 482 Cr. PC for quashing the complaint. Had the stamp of the complainant company not been affixed at the bottom of every page, and had the person authorised only had affixed his signature to the complaint without mentioning that he is signing for or on behalf of the complainant then, the petitioner could, by relying on the above decision seek quashing of the complaint, but not in a case like this. Since the payee of the dishonoured cheque is M/s. Lloyd Steel Industries Ltd. , and the complaint was signed on its behalf, but not by a general power of attorney of M/s. Lloyd Steel Industries ltd. , I see no reasons or grounds to quash the complaint. Petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions, now raised, before the trial Court. Petition is dismissed.