Court dismisses revisional application to quash criminal proceedings, finding cognizable offense. Power of attorney holder can file.

The court dismissed the revisional application seeking to quash criminal proceedings under various sections of the IPC, finding that the complaint disclosed a cognizable offense requiring thorough investigation. It held that the application for quashing by a power of attorney holder was maintainable and clarified that no preliminary inquiry was needed before registering the FIR. The court noted allegations of forgery and fraudulent use of a blank cheque, discrepancies in demands raised, and rejected claims of abuse of court process. The decision did not impact the petitioner's rights in the trial court, with all related applications disposed of and interim orders vacated.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the criminal proceeding under Sections 384/403/409/420/468/471/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Maintainability of the application for quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by a power of attorney holder.
3. Requirement of preliminary inquiry before the registration of FIR in commercial offences.
4. Allegation of forgery and fraudulent use of a blank cheque.
5. Validity of the demand raised under the SARFAESI Act and Negotiable Instruments Act.
6. Abuse of process of court and ulterior motive behind initiating the criminal proceeding.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the Criminal Proceeding:
The petitioner sought to quash the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 431 of 2021 under various sections of the IPC, alleging that the complainant's firm had availed loans which were secured by mortgaging property and delivering blank cheques. The petitioner argued that the complainant initiated the proceeding with an ulterior motive to pre-empt a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found that the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence, warranting thorough investigation to ascertain the complicity of the accused.

2. Maintainability of the Application for Quashing:
The court addressed the issue of whether an application for quashing under Section 482 of the Code is maintainable when filed by a power of attorney holder. It held that as per the Appellate Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court, an application signed by the petitioner or his authorized agent is maintainable. The court found no merit in the contention that the application was not maintainable.

3. Requirement of Preliminary Inquiry:
The petitioner argued that a preliminary inquiry should have been conducted before registering the FIR, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Lalita Kumari. The court clarified that if the information discloses a cognizable offence, the registration of FIR is mandatory without a preliminary inquiry. As the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence, the court held that no preliminary inquiry was necessary.

4. Allegation of Forgery and Fraudulent Use of a Blank Cheque:
The complainant alleged that the Finance Company used a blank cheque, delivered at the time of loan disbursement, by forging details and presenting it for an inflated amount after the death of one of the partners. The court noted that the cheque was presented despite the knowledge of the partner's death and the closure of the firm's account, indicating a prima facie case of forgery and fraudulent demand.

5. Validity of the Demand Raised:
The court observed that the demand under the SARFAESI Act was Rs. 34,86,706/-, whereas the demand under the Negotiable Instruments Act was Rs. 50,77,261/-, showing a discrepancy. It also noted that the loans were insured, and claims were settled by the insurance company, yet the Finance Company demanded payment from the complainant, raising questions about the legitimacy of the demands.

6. Abuse of Process of Court:
The petitioner contended that the criminal proceeding was initiated to wreak vengeance and pre-empt the filing of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found that the allegations disclosed a cognizable offence and warranted investigation, rejecting the argument that the proceeding was an abuse of the process of the court.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the revisional application, holding that the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence and warranted thorough investigation. It clarified that the observations made would not affect the rights and contentions of the petitioner before the trial court. All connected applications were disposed of, and interim orders, if any, were vacated. The judgment was to be sent to the trial court for information.

---