Section 138 NI Act: Case should not be dismissed on the ground that fact of personal knowledge of attorney is not mentioned in the complaint [Read the Order]

Delhi High Court has refused to quash a cheque bounce case where factum of personal knowledge was not mentioned in the complaint and accused wanted dismissal of case on that ground.

A bench of Justice Bakhru has passed the order in the case titled as Vinod Popli vs State on 20.09.2019.

The petitioner has filed the present petitions, inter alia, impugning a summoning order dated 18.02.2016 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioner also impugns orders dated 06.04.2019 and 19.04.2019.

By the order dated 06.04.2019, the petitioner’s application for dismissal of the complaint filed by respondent no.2 on the ground that the complaint did not mention that the authorized representative of the complainant had personal knowledge about the transaction, was dismissed.

High Court observed and held "This Court is not persuaded to accept the aforesaid contention. The complaint was filed by the son of the of the complainant, who was also Power of Attorney Holder. He had also stated that he had personal knowledge with regard to the transaction in question. The only question to be examined is whether such an averment was required to be made in the complaint and if so, whether failure to make such an averment to the effect that the Power of Attorney Holder had personal knowledge of the transaction would be fatal to the said complaint".

However, High Court allowed the accused to raise such question in trial court and observed "It is open for the petitioner to urge this question before the concerned court and the summoning order need not be interfered with at this stage".

Read the Order here:

Picture Source :