TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 412
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me of the authorised agent precedes that of the complainant society. 2. The petitioner is the accused in S.T. No. 807/2022 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First- Class Magistrate-I, Kannur (for short, 'Trial Court'), which has been registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the first respondent, the Secretary of the Educational Empowerment & Welfare Co-operative Society, Kannur ('Society' for brevity), alleging that a cheque issued by the petitioner in its favour for Rs.3,16,43,185/-, in discharge of a legally enforceable liability, got dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the petitioner's bank account. Despite receipt of the statutory demand notice, the petitioner has failed to pay the cheque amount. 3. The peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....whose favour the executive powers of the Society are vested under the bye-laws. It is also contended that the legal status of a Co-operative Society is distinct from that of a public limited company and that the challenge, raised nearly four years after the institution of the complaint, is purely technical and with the oblique intention to protract the final determination of the complaint. The order taking cognizance is correct. The petition warrants to be dismissed. . 5. I have heard Sri. Sathisan P., the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Suresh Kumar Kodoth, the learned counsel for the first respondent, and Sri. Devadas H. Mallan, the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contenti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... following averments in the complaint: "3) The complainant and the accused are known to each other and they had entered into an agreement on 23/10/2020 from the office of the complainant at Kannur. As per the terms of the agreement the complainant agreed to supply human resources and also required money for executing the public works entrusted to the accused by the State and Central Governments." *** *** *** *** "6). Thus, as per the books of records maintained by the complainant in the name of the accused during the banking business the accused owed the liability as on 25/02/2022 to the tune of Rs. 3,16,43,185/- (Rupees Three crore sixteen lakh forty-three thousand one hundred and eighty-five only) to the complai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Supreme Court in Bhupesh Rathod v. Dayashankar Prasad Chaurasia and Another [(2022) 2 SCC 355], which dealt with a substantially similar issue, in the following manner: "21. If we look at the format of the complaint which we have extracted aforesaid, it is quite apparent that the Managing Director has filed the complaint on behalf of the Company. There could be a format where the Company's name is described first, suing through the Managing Director but there cannot be a fundamental defect merely because the name of the Managing Director is stated first followed by the post held in the Company. 22. It is also relevant to note that a copy of the Board Resolution was filed along with the complaint. An affidavit had been br....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....solution unless the complaint had been instituted on behalf of the Company. 26. In our view, one of the most material aspects is that the signatures on the cheques were not denied. Nor was any alternative explanation offered as to why the duly signed cheques were handed over to the Company. There was no plea of fraud or misrepresentation. Faced with this position, the respondent merely sought to rely upon a technical objection regarding the format of the complaint to evade liability." (emphasis supplied) 13. On a careful comparison of the pleadings in the present complaint with the facts considered in Bhupesh Rathod's case, I am of the firm view that the ratio laid down in the said decision squarely governs the present ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plainant and his witnesses. Where the complainant is an incorporeal body represented by one of its employees, the employee who is a public servant is the de facto complainant and, in signing and presenting the complaint, acts in the discharge of his official duties.'' 18. In Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another [(2022) 20 SCC 661], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when there is a legal presumption under Section 139 of the N.I Act, it would not be judicious to carry out a detailed enquiry on a disputed question of fact at the pre-trial stage to quash the complaint. 19. In the above conspectus, particularly in view of the bye-laws of the Society and the resolution of the Managing Committee authorising Rat....