HAMSA Vs. IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the rapid proliferation of "cheque cases" in criminal courts with the introduction of S.138 and its allied provisions in Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the N.I. Act') any answer to the question raised in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case may have some impact. The question raised is this: Can the payee or holder in due course of a cheque file a complaint in the court as per S.142 of the N.I. Act through his power-of-attorney holder

(2.) Shri. P. Vijaya Bhanu and Shri. S. Vijayakumar, advocates, argued on opposite positions: A brief statement of facts in this case may be made. A complaint has been filed in the court of a judicial magistrate of first class for the offences under S.138 of the N.I. Act against the petitioner herein as the accused. One Mohammed Syed @ Veeran Haji is the complainant in the case, but respondent herein (one Ibrahim Hajee) has signed the complaint as power-of-attorney holder of the complainant. Learned magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process to the petitioner. Now the petitioner has come before this Court invoking the inherent powers of the High Court envisaged in S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') to have the complaint quashed.

(3.) Though the petitioner has raised more than one ground in his petition for quashing the complaint, learned counsel for the petitioner has, during arguments, confined to one point that "the respondent is only the power-of-attorney holder of the payee who has no locus standi to file the complaint under S.138 of the N.I. Act". Counsel contended that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence on such a complaint.