Power of Attorney Holder Can File Complaint under Section 200: Clarification on Authorization and Knowledge

The High Court held that a Power of Attorney Holder can maintain a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if authorized and knowledgeable about the transaction. The Court directed the Sessions Court to take cognizance of the complaint against respondents for offenses under the Companies Act and IPC, emphasizing the validity of the complaint filed through the Power of Attorney Holder. The judgment clarified the maintainability of such complaints and highlighted the significance of authorization and awareness of the transaction for filings by power of attorney holders.

---

---

Issues:
1. Maintainability of a complaint filed by a Power of Attorney Holder under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Cognizance of the complaint under Sections of the Companies Act, 1956 and 2013, as well as IPC.

Issue 1: Maintainability of Complaint by Power of Attorney Holder:

The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code against respondents for various offences under the Companies Act and IPC through a Power of Attorney Holder. The Sessions Court returned the complaint citing lack of maintainability. The petitioner argued that as per the Supreme Court's decision in A.C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra, a Power of Attorney Holder can file a complaint under Section 200 of the Code. The petitioner also referenced a Karnataka High Court judgment supporting this view. The High Court analyzed the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the Karnataka High Court and concluded that a Power of Attorney Holder can maintain a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code. The Court emphasized that the power of attorney holder must have knowledge of the transaction and be authorized by the original complainant. As the power of attorney holder in this case was well acquainted with the facts and duly authorized, the High Court allowed the petition and directed the Sessions Court to take cognizance of the complaint.

Issue 2: Cognizance of the Complaint under Companies Act and IPC:

The complaint filed by the petitioner under Sections of the Companies Act, 1956 and 2013, as well as various sections of the IPC, was initially returned by the Sessions Court questioning the locus standi of the Power of Attorney Holder. The petitioner argued that the power of attorney holder had the authority to file the complaint on behalf of the original complainant, who was unable to do so personally due to being abroad for his daughter's professional commitments. The High Court examined the details of the power of attorney and the complaint, noting that the power of attorney holder was authorized to act on behalf of the complainant. Relying on the legal precedents established by the Supreme Court and the Karnataka High Court, the High Court held that the complaint was maintainable and directed the Sessions Court to take cognizance of the complaint and proceed with further legal actions as per the law.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the Criminal Petition, directing the Sessions Court to consider the complaint filed by the petitioner through the Power of Attorney Holder and proceed with the case accordingly. The judgment clarified the maintainability of complaints filed by power of attorney holders under Section 200 of the Code and emphasized the importance of authorization and knowledge of the transaction for such filings.

---