2021 (5) TMI 451 - HC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses petitions filed through Power of Attorney, directs factual issues to trial

M/s. T.R. Traders Versus The State of Telangana

M/s. T.R. Traders Versus The State of Telangana - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Power of Attorney at the time of filing the complaint.2. Maintainability of the complaint filed through a Power of Attorney holder.3. Knowledge and competence of the Power of Attorney holder regarding the facts of the case.4. Allegations of coercion and threat in obtaining cheques.5. Procedural compliance under Section 200 Cr.P.C.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Power of Attorney at the time of filing the complaint:The petitioners argued that the complaints were filed on 14.05.2015, while the Power of Attorney (GPA) was dated 29.05.2015, making it invalid at the time of filing. The respondent countered that the GPA was actually executed on 29.04.2015, supported by endorsements from the Embassy of India, Washington DC, dated 29.04.2015. The court noted that the discrepancy regarding the date (29.05.2015 or 29.04.2015) is a factual issue to be determined during the trial. The court concluded that the existence of the GPA on the date of filing the complaints cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.2. Maintainability of the complaint filed through a Power of Attorney holder:The petitioners contended that complaints under Section 200 Cr.P.C. filed through a Power of Attorney holder are not maintainable. However, the court referred to the judgment in A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 11 SCC 790, which allows complaints to be filed through a Power of Attorney holder, provided the holder has personal knowledge of the transaction. The court also cited its own order in Crl.P.No.222 of 2021 and the Karnataka High Court decision in Nagarajappa v. H.D. Kumar Swamy, affirming that such complaints are maintainable.3. Knowledge and competence of the Power of Attorney holder regarding the facts of the case:The petitioners argued that the Power of Attorney holder did not have knowledge of the facts and was not conversant with the transactions. The court noted that the GPA explicitly authorized the holder to act on behalf of the principal, including filing complaints and engaging lawyers. The complaint also included a verification statement by the Power of Attorney holder affirming knowledge of the facts. The court concluded that whether the holder had sufficient knowledge is a factual question to be determined during the trial, where the petitioners will have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.4. Allegations of coercion and threat in obtaining cheques:The petitioners claimed that the cheques were obtained under coercion and threat, and there was no legally enforceable debt. The court observed that these are factual issues to be addressed during the trial. The petitioners can present evidence and cross-examine the respondent and witnesses to establish their claims during the trial.5. Procedural compliance under Section 200 Cr.P.C.:The petitioners argued that the complaints did not comply with Section 200 Cr.P.C. as no affidavit was filed by the Power of Attorney holder. The court found that the respondent had filed a sworn affidavit along with the complaints, fulfilling the requirement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The court also noted that the chief affidavit was filed in March 2019, and the petitioners had the opportunity to cross-examine but instead chose to file these petitions to quash the proceedings.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petitions, concluding that the petitioners failed to establish any grounds warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that the factual issues raised by the petitioners should be addressed during the trial, where they will have the opportunity to present their case and cross-examine witnesses. The interim order was vacated, and all miscellaneous petitions were closed.