Abhai Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Amit Daga, learned counsel for applicant, Mr. Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
(2.) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to allow this petition and quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.811 of 2011 (Kamal Febtex (India) vs. Nitin Kapoor and others), under Section 138/141 of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Meerut pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 9th Meerut.
(3.) It is submission of learned counsel for the applicant that complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") was initiated on behalf of opposite party no.2 on the ground that cheque was issued by applicant in favour of opposite party no.2, which was being dishonoured. So far service of notice and compliance of Section 138 (b) (c) of N.I. Act are not disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant rather it has been asserted that cheque that was said to have been issued by authorized signatory of M/s Iprophon Fashion Apparels Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Company"), the company has not been made party in the present proceeding. Office Bearers of the Company are also not made party as per Section 141 of the Act and accordingly, the complaint is hit by Section 141 of the Act. It is next contended by learned counsel for the applicant that it has not been specifically mentioned in the complaint as to why the cheque has been issued by company and then it is contended by learned counsel that complaint has been filed by Manager opposite party no.2 and authorization letter that has been given in favour of Manager is defective and on the basis of authorization letter, the complaint filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 is defective and same is not maintainable.;