Cheque dishonour complaint by authorised representative is maintainable when pleadings and affidavits show prima facie authority and knowledge.

A cheque dishonour complaint filed in the name of the payee through an authorised manager or power-of-attorney holder is maintainable where the complaint and supporting affidavits prima facie show valid authorisation and familiarity with the transaction. In such prosecutions, the adequacy of the representative's authority and personal knowledge should ordinarily be tested at trial, not by a rigid threshold objection. The High Court's quashing of the summoning order was held unsustainable because it adopted an unduly technical approach and ignored the complaint, authorisation letter, and affidavit material taken together. The complaint and summoning order were restored for adjudication on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed in the name of the payee through an authorised manager/power-of-attorney holder satisfied Section 142 of that Act. (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the summoning order under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the authorised person's personal knowledge and authority were not specifically pleaded.

Issue (i): Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed in the name of the payee through an authorised manager/power-of-attorney holder satisfied Section 142 of that Act.

Analysis: Section 142 requires the complaint to be in writing and made by the payee or holder in due course. The complaint was filed in the name of the payee firm through its manager, who was authorised by the proprietor. The authorisation letter, the complaint affidavit, and the affidavit of evidence together indicated that the deponent was in charge of the business, was conversant with the transactions, and had been duly empowered to initiate proceedings. The governing law permits a company or proprietary concern to act through an authorised person, and the adequacy of such authorisation and knowledge is ordinarily a matter for trial when prima facie material exists.

Conclusion: The complaint satisfied Section 142, and the filing through the authorised manager was valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the summoning order under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the authorised person's personal knowledge and authority were not specifically pleaded.

Analysis: The materials on record specifically stated that the authorised manager was well conversant with the facts, handled the day-to-day business, and was aware of the transaction. The Court reiterated that explicit averments must be gathered from the complaint and supporting documents as a whole, not tested by a rigid formula. In proceedings under Section 138, the Magistrate may act on the complaint and supporting affidavit, and disputed questions about authorisation or knowledge should ordinarily be left for trial. The High Court therefore adopted an unduly technical approach and interfered at the threshold without justification.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in quashing the summoning order, and its order was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The complaint and summoning order were restored for adjudication on merits, and the threshold quashing was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour prosecution, a complaint filed in the name of the payee through an authorised person is maintainable if the complaint and supporting material prima facie disclose authorisation and knowledge of the transaction; disputes on those points should ordinarily be tried and not decided by quashing at the threshold.

---