T. UNNIKRISHNAN Vs. RATHEESH K.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point to ponder in this petition is whether the complaint can be quashed on the ground that, in its cause title, the name of the authorised agent precedes that of the complainant society.

(2.) The petitioner is the accused in S.T. No.807/2022 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First- Class Magistrate-I, Kannur (for short, 'Trial Court '), which has been registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the first respondent, the Secretary of the Educational Empowerment & Welfare Co-operative Society, Kannur ( 'Society ' for brevity), alleging that a cheque issued by the petitioner in its favour for Rs.3,16,43,185.00, in discharge of a legally enforceable liability, got dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the petitioner 's bank account. Despite receipt of the statutory demand notice, the petitioner has failed to pay the cheque amount.

(3.) The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the complaint principally on the ground that the complaint has not been filed by the payee of the cheque, namely, the Society, but by its secretary. According to the petitioner, the complaint merely describes the first respondent as an employee of the Society and not as one representing the payee ( Society). Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Jose P.P. v. M.M. Abdulkhader and Another [2020 (3) KHC 545], it is argued that an authorised representative or power of attorney holder cannot maintain a complaint in his personal capacity merely by referring to his designation. As the above legal position was overlooked by the Trial Court, while taking cognizance of the offence, the complaint is liable to be quashed.