Cheque dishonour complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by the power of attorney would be maintainable in law – Supreme Court
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2557 (2018) (10) SC
Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties:
A.C. Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 1 (2015) 12 SCC 203
The complainant filed a complaint through Special Power of Attorney Holder (the appellant) for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 420 IPC. The complainant died while the trial was in progress. After the death of the complainant, the appellant filed an application before the trial Court to continue the prosecution as a legal heir (son).
The application was allowed by the trial Court.
However, the High Court quashed the proceedings against the accused-respondents. The High Court by the impugned order took the view that the initiation of the complaint by the Special Power of Attorney of the complainant was invalid and that the continuance of the proceedings after the death of complainant by the said Power of Attorney would not be permissible.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in a case, it had clearly held that a complaint filed by the power of attorney would be maintainable in law. Therefore, the initial complaint filed by the appellant on behalf of the complainant would not be invalid in law as held by the High Court in the order under challenge.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that after the death of the complainant, the application filed by the appellant was to continue the criminal prosecution as the legal heir of the deceased, the High Court understood the application to be for continuance of the criminal prosecution in his capacity as a Power of Attorney. The competence of the legal heir of a person aggrieved to continue a criminal complaint is not in doubt.
The Apex Court opined that the High Court ought to have allowed the continuance of the proceedings as prayed by the appellant and ought not to have quashed the proceedings as it did.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and directed for commencement of the trial against accused-respondent.
Mere technical mistake made by assessee while filing up return cannot be a ground of disallowing the claim when such…
Denial of Capital gain deduction u/s 54B for agricultural land purchased in the name of wife Supreme Court stays High…
CIT(A) was justified in considering surrounding circumstances, the normal human conduct of a prudent investor, the probabilities to judge creditworthiness…
High Court frowns at Provisional attachment orders passed u/s 83(1) GST lifted only their illegality being questioned In a recent…
In Faceless assessment grant of opportunity of personal hearing is not optional at discretion of the Assessing Officer its waiver…
CBDT Guidelines for compulsory selection of return for compulsory scrutiny during FY 2024-25 CBDT Guidelines for compulsory selection of…