S SUDARSON Vs. S UMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of a direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate No. V, Coimbatore, to receive the complaint dated 23.7.2007 from the petitioner herein and deal with the same in accordance with law.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint was signed by the Power of Attorney and therefore, the learned Magistrate returned the complaint with the endorsement to the effect that ?How power of Attorney is entitled to file this complaint?. The learned counsel submitted that in paragraph 14 of the complaint, it is clearly stated that in respect of a cognizable offence any person can set the law in motion as the offence mentioned in the complaint is a cognizable offence under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and as such, the said person is having locus standi. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint is very much maintainable.

(3.) IT is seen that the petitioner is the complainant, who has preferred a private complaint for the alleged offence under Section 506(i) I.P.C. and he has been authorised by the deed of Power of Attorney dated 17.7.2007 by 1. Adimoolam, S/o. Lakshmipathy. A perusal of the complaint shows that in the cause title, there is no reference about the petitioner filing the complaint as Power Agent and therefore, this Court is constrained to direct the petitioner to present a fresh complaint mentioning in the cause title that the petitioner representing as a Power Agent. IT is also made clear that any person can set the law in motion if the offence alleged is one of a cognizable offence. Therefore, if the complaint is otherwise in conformity with the requirement of law, the learned Magistrate is directed to take the same of file and deal with the matter in accordance with law.