Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15259 Court No. - 16 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2314 of 2025 Applicant :- M/S Shiv Kripa Medical And Surgicals Thru. The Sale Propritar Smt. Manju Shuklaand Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. To The Govt. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhushan Pandey,Asim Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA for the State. Notice to respondent no. 2 to 4 are dispensed with in view of the proposed order. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act has been filed through power attorney holder. While filing the complaint, an affidavit was filed by the deponent Vipul Tiwari (power attorney holder) alleging himself to be the complainant which admittedly he is not. It has been further submitted that although a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act can be filed through power of attorney, however, the power of attorney holder cannot file a complaint in his own name as the complainant, but, the affidavit in this case filed on behalf of the complainant depicts that Vipul Tiwari is the complainant. Additionally, it is argued that a power of attorney holder must have witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee/holder in due course or possess due knowledge regarding the transaction. These crucial aspects were not considered while passing the impugned order dated 26.09.2024, which, therefore, suffers from total non-application of mind. In support of this contention, learned counsel has relied on the Supreme Court judgment in A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 11 SCC 790. Emphasis is on para 33. Perused the record. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the complaint shows that admittedly the deponent Vipul Tiwari is the complainant. It appears that while issuing the summoning order, the learned Court below failed to recognize that the complaint was filed through a power of attorney holder. Furthermore, the Court did not discuss or observe the requirement that the power of attorney holder must have witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee/holder in due course or possess due knowledge regarding the transaction. Thus, prima facie, the impugned order dated 26.09.2024 suffers from total non- application of mind. Considering the observation made herein above, so also the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.C. Narayanan (supra), the impugned order dated 26.09.2024 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Court below for passing a fresh order in accordance with the law. The petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 R.C. Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench