Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24220 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41991 of 2024 Applicant :- Hitesh Goswami Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prateek Dwivedi,Praveen Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the opposite party No. However, the interest of the opposite No. 2 is being safeguarded in view of the discussion made hereinbelow. 3. The applicant herein has filed the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding against the applicant arising out of Complaint Case No. 1456 of 2019 (Kaushal Kishore v. Hitesh Goswami), under Section 138 N.I. Act, District Varanasi pending in the court of learned Additional Court, Varanasi. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that though there happened to be commercial transactions in the shape of commitments for supply and payments in lieu thereof between the complainant, Kaushal Kishore Gupta, opposite party No. 2 and applicant. However, the disputes stood triggered when a cheque of Rs.1,49,06,982/- stood dishonored. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the complaint ought to have been lodged by the complainant but the same was lodged through a power of attorney holder, namely, Iftqar Ahmad. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the power of attorney holder by no stretch of imagination could have personal knowledge and there is no recital regarding gathering of personal knowledge stands either mentioned in the complaint or even otherwise, thus, an application stood preferred by the applicant on 07.10.2024 for putting the complainant as witness and for cross-examination. However, the said application came to be rejected by virtue of the order dated 07.10.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there happens to be a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another; (2014) 11 SCC 790, whereby though it was mandated that a power of attorney holder is not forbidden to file a complaint on behalf of the complainant but the essential ingredients which would be a motivating factor would obviously be gaining of personal knowledge. He submits that the order impugned practically does not advert to the crucial question, however, the application has been rejected only on the ground that it is a dilatory tactics, he submits that this way or that way the application ought to have been decided on merits. 4. Prayer is for quashing of the order and setting aside the same while remanding it back to the Court concerned to pass fresh order. 5. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that might be, the complaint has been lodged to power of attorney holder and the applicant seeks to rely upon the judgment in the case of A.C. Narayana (supra) but the order does not indicate that the contentions have been considered. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 7. The order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the Additional Court, Varanasi in Complaint Case No.1456 of 2019, under section 138 of N.I. Act reads as under: "परिवाद सं0-1456/2019 दिदनांक 07.10.2024 पुका प उभयपक्ष उपस्थित। अभिभयुक्त की ओ से इस आशय का प्रा०पत्र प्रतुत दिकया गया दिक परिवादी को न्यायालय द्वाा सम्मन प उसका साक्ष्य लिलया जाये। परिवादी का साक्ष्य परिवादी की औ से दालि/ल नहीं दिकया गया है। परिवादी के मुख्ता ए आम का साक्ष्य काया गया है। 2 of 3 परिवादी के दिवद्वान अधि6वक्ता ने आपलि7 दिकया औ मौलि/क रूप से व्यक्त दिकया दिक परिवादी मुख्ता ए आम द्वाा साक्ष्य प्रतुत दिकया है। परिवादी वयं न्यायालय के समक्ष उपस्थित नहीं है औ पूव< में भी परिवादी व्यदिक्तगत रूप से उपस्थित नहीं है। अभिभयुक्त के द्वाा प्रतुत प्रा०पत्र /ारिज दिकये जाने योग्य है। उभयपक्ष को प्रा०पत्र प सुना एवं पत्रावली का अवलोकन दिकया। आज बचाव साक्ष्य हेतु पत्रावली दिनयत है। अभिभयुक्त ने बचाव में साक्ष्य प्रतुत नहीं दिकया। अभिभयुक्त मुकदमे को दिवलस्थिम्बत कने हेतु एक अनावश्यक प्रा०पत्र जो दिवधि6पूर्ण< तीके से न्यायालय के समक्ष दालि/ल नहीं दिकया गया है, जो सव<ा /ारिज दिकये जाने योग्य है। आदेश अभिभयुक्त द्वाा प्रतुत प्रा०पत्र /ारिज दिकया जाता है। मुकदमे को दिवलस्थिम्बत कने के कार्ण अभिभयुक्त प रू0 500/- हजा< लगाया जाता है। बचाव साक्ष्य हेतु दिदनांक 12.11.2024 को प्रेश हो। अधितरिक्त न्यायालय, वाार्णसी।" 8. The order in question depicts that the court while indicating the claim of the applicant while rejecting the application had come to the conclusion that it was a dilatory tactics, however, the questions which are being sought to be made have not been adverted to, primarily, the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.C. Narayanan (supra). 9. In view of the opinion of the Court, the impugned order dated 07.10.2024 cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside. 10. The court below shall decide the application preferred by the applicant on 07.10.2024 afresh by 28.03.2025. 11. The applicant shall submit a certified copy of the order along with self attested copy of the application before the court below by 04.03.2025. 12. The passing of the order today may not be construed to an expression that this Court has gone into the merits of the case. As this court is only quashed the order, principally on the ground that the same is non- speaking. However, legal questions are left open to be raised by either of the parties and the order shall be passed after hearing the complainant also. Order Date :- 19.2.2025 A. Prajapati 3 of 3 Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad