ARUN KUMAR MOHATA Vs. MANJUSHREE SINGHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant criminal revisional application the petitioner sought for quashing of a proceeding in connection with the Case No. C-186 of 2004 pending before the learned First Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) relating to the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as the order dated May 23, 2007 passed in connection therewith.

(2.) THE petitioner challenged the said proceedings on twofold grounds :

(3.) I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions of the parties. The principle of law as laid down in the case of Jimmy Jahangir Madan v. Bolly Cariyappa Hindfey (supra) has no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of this case. That was a case where in connection with a proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, after the death of the complainant, the payee, her legal heirs, son and daughter, by General Power of Attorney authorized and empowered two others to continue the prosecution and in terms thereof they moved an application under Section 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The question arose for decision in the said case whether the power of attorney holder can file such an application, when no such application was filed by the legal heir of the complainant. However, the issue involves in the instant case is completely different and the facts, and circumstances of the aforesaid case is completely distinguishable from that of the present one. The Section 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only provides as to who be permitted to conduct the prosecution and not the locus standi of any person to make a complaint in Court. To prosecute any accused in a Court of law by filing a complaint representing the complainant and to conduct the prosecution on behalf of the complainant before a Court of law are completely distinct and different matter, as such for filing a complaint in the name of the complainant on his behalf by any duly authorized person no permission is required as it requires in terms of Section 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for conducting any prosecution. A legal representative of the complainant is equally competent as that of the complainant himself, to prosecute an accused in a case relating to an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and it would be always lawful for a Court to take cognizance of such offence on a complaint made to it by the power of attorney holder of the payee. In the instant case, the complaints relating to an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act being made to the Court by one Prakash Kumar Mohata, the constituted attorney of the payee Manjushree Singhi being duly authorized and empowered by her to file the said complaint and such complaint being in the name of the complainant and on her behalf the requirements of law have been fully satisfied and thus there is no legal impediment on the Court to take cognizance thereupon and to proceed with the case. Thus, the order of taking cognizance of the offence and continuation of the instant proceedings on tile basis thereupon is wholly lawful and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Moreover, in C.R.R. No. 613 of 2005 this Court has already upheld the order of taking cognizance.