153 Supp HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM (M) No. 294/2025 CrlM No. 697/2025 Zahid Sharif Dar ….. Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. Hussain Rashid, Adv. V/s FIL industries Limited ….. Respondent(s) Through: Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge ORDER 04.06.2025 1. The petitioner has, challenged complaint filed by the respondent against him, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as also, the proceedings arising out of said complaint, which is stated to be pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sopore. 2. Heard and considered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order dated 16.3.2020 passed by the learned Magistrate whereby cognizance of offence has been taken and process has been issued against the petitioner, is cryptic in nature and does not reflect application of mind on the part of the learned Magistrate. It has been further submitted that the complaint P a g e | 2 CRM (M) No. 294/2025 CrlM No. 697/2025 has been filed by the power of attorney holder of the company and not by the authorized person and on this ground, the complaint is not maintainable. It has been further submitted that the evidence recorded by the learned Magistrate during trial of the case, does not disclose commission of the offence against the petitioner. 4. So far as the first ground urged by the petitioner is concerned, a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate on 16.03.2020 which is in Urdu, clearly reflects that the learned Magistrate has applied his mind to the preliminary evidence led by the complainant, the contents of the complaint and the documents appended thereto, whereafter the learned Magistrate has framed prima facie opinion that offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is made out against the petitioner. Merely because the learned Magistrate has not reiterated and repeated allegations made in the complaint in his order dated 16.03.2020 does not make the said order either cryptic or mechanical in nature. Law does not provide that the Magistrate must pass a detailed order while taking P a g e | 3 CRM (M) No. 294/2025 CrlM No. 697/2025 cognizance of offences and issuing process to the accused. What is necessary is that the order should reflect application of mind on the part of the Magistrate to the material and evidence placed before the Magistrate. 5. It is clearly discernible from the impugned order passed by the learned trial Magistrate on 16.03.2020 that the learned Magistrate has applied his mind to the material on record and he has referred to the said material in his order. Thus no fault can be found in the impugned order dated 16.03.2020. Even otherwise, the petitioner after having participated in the proceedings for five long years, cannot challenge the order taking cognizance of offence, without showing that any prejudice has been caused to him. Therefore, the ground urged by the petitioner is without any merit 6. The second ground that has been urged by the petitioner is with regard to the authority of the person who has filed the complaint. In this regard, it is to be noted that a complaint on behalf of a company, which is juristic person has to be filed through some person acting on its behalf. In the present case, it is recorded in the complaint that Mohammad Akbar Marazi P a g e | 4 CRM (M) No. 294/2025 CrlM No. 697/2025 is power of attorney holder of the company and he is authorized by the Managing Director of the Company on behalf of the Board of Directors. The demand notice has also been issued by the company in its own name. The question whether power of attorney holder was authorized by the Board of Directors of the Company is a matter of trial which cannot be determined by this Court in these proceedings. 7. The third ground that has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also without any merit, as this Court, while exercising its powers under Section 528 of BNSS, cannot proceed to appreciate the evidence that is led by the complainant before the trial court. The contention of the petitioner that the evidence led by the complainant does not make out a case against him can be gone into by the learned trial Magistrate at appropriate stage. 8. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 04.06.2025 Aasif