SURINDER SINGH Vs. JOHN IMPEX PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of two criminal revisions Nos. 195 and 197 of 1996, which involve common questions of law and facts.

(2.) SHRI Surinder Singh, the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 195 of 1996 along with his mother Smt. Puna Devi, petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 197 of 1996 and sister Smt. Satwant Kaur, is the owner of a house bearing No. A-56, Defence Colony, New Delhi. This property has been let out to respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is the Managing director and respondent No. 3 is the Director of respondent No. 1, and are responsible for the business and affairs of respondent No. 1-Company.

(3.) ON 8. 7. 1995, respondent No. 2 issued cheque for Rs. 16. 000/- drawn upon bank of India, Cannought Circus, New Delhi, in favour of the petitioner- Shri Surinder singh on account of rent of the said building. Similarly the said respondent issued a cheque dated 5. 7. 1995 for Rs. 44,800/- drawn upon the same Bank in favour of Smt. Puna Devi on account of rent of the said building. Both these cheques were presented to Punjab and Sind Bank, Mohali, through Shri Rajinder Singh, holding General Power of Attorney on behalf of these petitioners. Both the cheque were dishonoured on account of being insufficient funds. Legal notices were issued on 9. 9. 1995, sent under registered cover on 12. 9. 1995, in addition to a copy sent under postal certificate. However, payment was not made within the prescribed limit of time. Consequently, both the petitioners filed complaints through Shri Rajinder Singh, holding the General power of Attorney on their behalf under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). After recording preliminary evidence, sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharar, has dismissed the complaint solely on the ground that Rajinder Singh has no power or authority on behalf of the complaintants to file these complaints. Feeling aggrieved Shri Surinder Singh and his mother Smt. Puna Devi have filed these petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 14. 2. 1996, passed by the said Sub Divisional judicial Magistrate, and for a direction to decide the complaint in accordance with law on merits. Notice of motion was issued to the respondents.