ARUNA MADAN Vs. JAGDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this order I intend to dispose of the Criminal Misc. No.M.26352 of 2008 and Criminal Misc.No.M.26353 of 2008 filed under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the summoning order in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Since common question of law and facts are involved between the same parties, so both the petitions are disposed of with the common order. For convenience, facts are being taken from Criminal Misc. No.M.26352 of 2008.

(2.) Jagdeep Singh, Director, Poshak Feeds (I) (P) Limited, through his special power of attorney Anant Ram filed complaint under Section 138 of the Act against Aruna Madan wife of Shri Hakikat Madan, proprietor Madan Feed Store with the allegations that complainant Jagdeep Singh is Director of Poshak Feeds (I) (P) Limited, and is filing complaint through special power of attorney who has been duly authorized to file and prove the present complaint. The accused had dealing with the complainant from time to time and in order to discharge his legal liability, accused issued a cheque No.609414 dated 1.8.2007 of Rs. 50,000/- payable to the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque in his banker J & K Bank Branch at Karnal on 2.8.2007 but the said cheque was refused with the endorsement insufficient funds. The complainant informed the accused through a registered notice dated 11.8.2007 and in spite of that amount was not paid. Hence the complaint.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that complaint has not been filed by a competent person. The cheque was issued in the name of the company but the complaint has been filed by one of the Directors, who has not been authorized for that purpose. So, the complaint is not maintainable. To fortify his argument, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon authority Swastik Coaters v. Deepak Brothers, 1998 3 CivCC 89.