TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a complaint under section 142(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed through a power of attorney could validly sustain cognizance and summons when the power of attorney was not produced with the complaint; (ii) whether the complaint, viewed as a whole, was so inherently improbable that no offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was made out; and (iii) whether the complaint amounted to an abuse of the process of law warranting quashing under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Issue (i): Whether a complaint under section 142(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed through a power of attorney could validly sustain cognizance and summons when the power of attorney was not produced with the complaint.
Analysis: A complaint under section 142(a) may be filed through a duly authorised power of attorney holder, but the Magistrate must satisfy himself that the authorisation exists and is produced at the time of cognizance. Where the complaint is presented through an attorney and the document of authorisation is not placed before the Magistrate, valid cognizance cannot be taken.
Conclusion: The issue was answered against the respondent and in favour of the petitioner; the summoning order was unsustainable on this ground.
Issue (ii): Whether the complaint, viewed as a whole, was so inherently improbable that no offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was made out.
Analysis: The allegations were examined against the admitted background that the cheques were signed, but the surrounding facts made the complainant's version improbable. The story of post-dated cheques allegedly issued years earlier, without supporting material, in the midst of serious matrimonial and criminal disputes, was found to be absurd and inherently unlikely on the complaint's own showing.
Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the petitioner; the complaint was liable to be quashed as no prudent person could conclude that sufficient grounds existed for proceeding.
Issue (iii): Whether the complaint amounted to an abuse of the process of law warranting quashing under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The complaint suppressed the wider litigation between the parties and was treated as a counterblast to the matrimonial and criminal disputes already pending. The omission of material background facts bore directly on bona fides and disclosed misuse of the criminal process.
Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the petitioner; the proceedings were quashed as an abuse of process.
Final Conclusion: The revisions succeeded, the summoning order and all consequent proceedings were set aside, and the criminal complaints were quashed with costs.
Ratio Decidendi: A criminal complaint under section 142(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be instituted through a power of attorney holder only if the authorisation is produced for cognizance, and proceedings under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be quashed where the complaint is inherently improbable or constitutes an abuse of process.
TaxTMI 
