Section 138 complaint authority and abuse-of-process objections cannot justify quashing at the threshold

Complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were challenged on the basis that they were signed by the manager of a proprietary concern and that the proceedings were an abuse of process. The complaints were treated as having been instituted by the payee, and the proprietary character of the concern did not convert the matter into one requiring a power of attorney complaint. The authority of the manager to sign was held to be a matter for evidence at trial, not a ground for quashing at the threshold. Repeated challenges to maintainability were also discouraged, and the petitions were described as belated and lacking candour.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were liable to be quashed on the ground that they were signed by the manager of the proprietary concern and on the further ground that the petitions amounted to an abuse of process of court.

Analysis: The complaints were instituted by the payee of the dishonoured cheques, and the fact that the complainant was a proprietary concern did not make the matter one where a power of attorney filed the complaint in place of the payee. The objection regarding the authority of the manager who signed the complaints was held to be a matter that could be examined on evidence at the trial stage and not a ground for quashing at the threshold. The petitioner had already unsuccessfully challenged the maintainability of the complaints in earlier revisions, and the same question could not be re-agitated in another form. The petitions were also found to have been filed belatedly to stall the trial and without candour.

Conclusion: The complaints were not liable to be quashed, and the petitions were dismissed with costs.

---