Cheque Dishonour Complaint by Authorised Representative: curable defects and prima facie material defeat threshold quashing

A cheque dishonour complaint filed by a company through an authorised representative was held maintainable, and defects relating to production of the original resolution or the mode of verification were treated as curable. At the stage of issuance of process, the Magistrate could rely on the complaint, supporting documents and the affidavit under Section 200 CrPC. The absence of an express averment of the authorised representative's personal knowledge did not, by itself, justify quashing where the complaint and accompanying material disclosed a prima facie case. The challenge to the process orders therefore failed, and the complaints were allowed to proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed through an authorised representative, could be quashed at the stage of issuance of process on the grounds that the original resolution was not produced, the deponent's authority was questioned, and the complaint did not expressly aver the authorised representative's knowledge of the transaction.

Analysis: The complaints were filed by the company through an authorised representative, and the accompanying documents included a resolution authorising him to act for the company. The Court applied the settled position that a company may prosecute a cheque dishonour complaint through a power of attorney holder or authorised representative, and that defects relating to authority can be rectified. It also considered that, for issuance of process, the Magistrate may rely on the complaint, supporting documents, and affidavit under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court distinguished the authorities relied upon by the petitioners and held that the absence of an explicit averment regarding personal knowledge in the complaint, by itself, did not justify quashing at the threshold, particularly when the affidavit and supporting material disclosed the requisite facts.

Conclusion: The complaints disclosed a prima facie case and were not liable to be quashed at the stage of process.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the process orders failed, and the complaints were allowed to proceed before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: A cheque dishonour complaint filed by a company through an authorised representative is maintainable, and any defect in authority or in the mode of verification is curable at the appropriate stage unless the complaint is otherwise devoid of a prima facie case.

---