Power of attorney complaints in cheque dishonour cases are maintainable, and disputed authority issues should be tried on evidence.

A cheque dishonour complaint under Section 200 CrPC may be maintained through a duly authorised power of attorney holder where the attorney is competent to act for the complainant and the complaint is properly verified. A disputed date or validity of the power of attorney raises a factual issue that is ordinarily not suitable for quashing at the threshold and should be tested at trial. The objection that no supporting affidavit accompanied the complaints was rejected because the record showed a sworn affidavit. On this reasoning, no ground existed to invoke inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings, and the complaints were allowed to proceed to trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is maintainable when filed through a power of attorney holder; (ii) whether the disputed date and validity of the power of attorney could justify quashing the proceedings at the threshold; (iii) whether the alleged absence of a supporting affidavit under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vitiated the complaints.

Issue (i): whether a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is maintainable when filed through a power of attorney holder.

Analysis: A complaint for dishonour of cheque may be filed through a power of attorney holder if the holder is authorised to act for the complainant and the complaint is supported by the necessary verification and knowledge of the transaction. The complaint can be maintained where the attorney holder acts on behalf of the payee and the matter is otherwise fit for trial.

Conclusion: The complaint through the power of attorney holder is maintainable, and the objection fails.

Issue (ii): whether the disputed date and validity of the power of attorney could justify quashing the proceedings at the threshold.

Analysis: The discrepancy regarding whether the power of attorney was executed on 29.04.2015 or 29.05.2015 raised a factual controversy. Such a disputed question of fact, particularly when evidence and cross-examination are available in the criminal trial, is not a fit ground for invoking the inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.

Conclusion: The proceedings could not be quashed on this factual dispute.

Issue (iii): whether the alleged absence of a supporting affidavit under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vitiated the complaints.

Analysis: The record indicated that a sworn affidavit accompanied the complaints. The challenge on this aspect therefore did not establish any procedural illegality warranting interference at the threshold.

Conclusion: The objection based on Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was rejected.

Final Conclusion: No ground was made out for exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the cheque dishonour complaints, and the matters were left to proceed to trial.

Ratio Decidendi: A cheque dishonour complaint filed through a duly authorised power of attorney holder is maintainable, and disputed questions of fact concerning authority or transaction details should ordinarily be decided at trial rather than in quashing proceedings.

---