Defamation complaint through authorised power of attorney holder upheld; lack of personal knowledge was not a threshold bar.

A defamation complaint under Section 200 CrPC filed through an expressly authorised power of attorney holder was maintainable because Section 199(1) CrPC permits a complaint by the person aggrieved and does not prevent presentation through an authorised representative. The objection that the holder lacked personal knowledge was not accepted as a ground to quash the proceedings at the threshold, because issues of proof and evidence could be examined later by the trial court. The order taking cognizance and issuing summons for offences under Sections 500, 501 and 502 IPC was therefore not interfered with.

---

---

Issues: Whether a defamation complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, instituted through a duly authorised power of attorney holder, was maintainable and whether the order taking cognizance and issuing summons for offences under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, called for interference.

Analysis: The complaint disclosed that the aggrieved person had expressly authorised his power of attorney holder to present the complaint and prosecute the case on his behalf, and had also stated that the holder was aware of the facts. Section 199(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 permits a complaint by the person aggrieved and does not bar a complaint being made through an authorised representative. The objection based on absence of personal knowledge was not accepted as a ground to quash the proceedings at the threshold, since questions relating to proof and evidence could arise at later stages before the trial court.

Conclusion: The complaint through the power of attorney holder was held maintainable and the challenge to the summons order failed.

---