M.L. Mehta, J.@mdashThis is a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the summoning order dated 01.12.2011 passed by the ld. M.M. in C.C. No. 3004/11 registered u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the complaint of respondent No.2. The facts of the case in brief are that petitioner No.1 is an unregistered partnership firm constituted by the petitioner No.3 and 4. Respondent No.2 has alleged in the above mentioned complaint that petitioners took a loan for the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- vide cheque No. 314053 dated 25.10.2010. It has been further alleged that in discharge of their liability the petitioners issued two cheques; bearing No.281943 dated 06.07.2011 and No.281946 dated 08.07.2011 for the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- respectively which were dishonoured on presentation with remarks " payment stopped by drawer" vide returning memo dated 16.09.2011. Respondent No.2 had averred in his complaint that the legal notice served on the petitioners did not evoke any response or payment and hence he was constrained to file the complaint. After consideration of the allegations made in the complaint and the pre summoning evidence, the ld. M.M. passed the impugned summoning order against the petitioners. Hence, the present petition.
2. The summoning order has been assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the ld. M.M. has not considered the fact that the name of the payee on the cheques in question is that of "Suraj Bhan Pawan Kumar" which is name of the firm of the respondent No.2, whereas the complaint case has been instituted by respondent No.2 in his own name and thereby the complaint is not maintainable in the present form which consequently renders the summoning order as bad in law. It has been further urged that the summoning order suffers from illegality as the petitioner No. 2 has signed the cheques as the "authorized signatory" of the petitioner No.1 firm and not in the capacity of the partner of the firm. Lastly, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint against the petitioners is barred u/s 3 of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 as the respondent No.2/Complainant does not possess a license for money lending.
3. On the perusal of the complaint filed by respondent No.2 in the Court of ld. M.M., it is noted that the complaint is filed by respondent No.2 as the proprietor of M/s Suraj Bhan Pawan Kumar, which is the firm in whose name the cheques were allegedly issued by petitioner No.2. The firm being a legal entity will logically be represented by its proprietor in every proceeding, be it legal or commercial. The complaint filed by respondent No. 2/complainant is well within the legal parameters and the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, is untenable.
4. Moving on, the next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the prosecution of the petitioners, particularly of petitioner No.2, is unsustainable on the ground that petitioner No. 2 has endorsed the cheques as the "authorized signatory" of the petitioner No.1 firm and not in the capacity of the partner of the firm, is patently absurd and deserves to be out rightly rejected. The term authorized signatory refers to an individual who is authorized to execute a binding document on behalf of a corporation, partnership or other legal entity. It is irrelevant whether the petitioner No.2 has signed the cheques as authorized signatory or in the capacity of partner of the firm. He has acknowledged his liability towards the complainant by signing of the cheques. This plea on the face of it seems to be nothing, but a desperate ploy to escape the liability by the petitioners by hoodwinking the Court.
5. The last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.2 is not a license holder under the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 and hence the alleged transaction between him and the petitioners is not covered u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is also liable to be rejected. Under the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders'' Act 1938, a money lender means a person or a firm carrying on the business of advancing loans. There is no evidence to show that the respondent No.2 /complainant is acting as a money lender. Reliance on
6. Moreover, whatever defence the petitioners have cannot be gone into at this stage of summoning. At this stage, what is required to be seen is as to whether from the complaint and the pre summoning evidence in support thereof, there are sufficient reasons to proceed against the petitioners. If that is so, the Magistrate is competent and within his powers to issue process against the accused persons. In the case of K.M. Mathew v K.A. Abraham & Others 2002 (3) JCC 1523, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that when a Magistrate before issuing process has come to the conclusion that the complaint prima facie makes out the offence, the High Court shall be reluctant in exercising its inherent powers to quash the proceedings. Undisputedly, powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C has to be used sparingly and with great caution and only in those cases where this Court comes to the conclusion that there was manifest injustice or there was abuse of process of the court. In my opinion, this case does not fall into the category of cases which would merit exercise of inherent powers of this Court. In view of the above discussion, I find no infirmity in the summoning order passed by the ld. M.M. Finding no merits in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner; the petition is dismissed in limine.
