HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No. 512 OF 2009 PETITIONER Firm Manohar Lal Sachchanand, Through Partnar Amar Sukhwani, S/o Shri Manohar Lal Sukhwani, Aged about 35 years, Grocexy Shop, Near Abdullah Hotsl, Rataabandha Chowk, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS RESPONDENT Bashir Ahmed S/o Haji Nasim Ahmed; Aged 24 years, through Power of Attorney Haji Nasim Ahmed; R/o Dhamtari, Nawagaon District Chhattisgarh. PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present- Shri Ranbir Singh Marhas, Advocate for the petitioner/applicant. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 05] 10I2009) This is petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashment of the order taking cognizance dated 24/ 4/2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate Fixst Class, Dhamtari in criminal complaint case No. 151/08 whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negoh'able Instruments Act, 1881 (in short “the Act of 188 1") against the petitioner. 2. The quashment is prayed on the ground that present complaint has not en filed by the resondent alleged payee of the cu refore be p heqe the tha complaint is not maintainable in the light of Section 142 (a) of the Act of 1881. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that present complaint has not been tiled by the person in whose favour alleged cheque has been issued] payee of the cheque namely Bashir Ahmed and has been tiled by his attorney, therefore Court was not empowered to take cognizance of the offence at the instance of his attorney. Copy of’the order impugned, copy of the complaint and copy of the order sheet perused. It reveals from the copy of complaint that complaint has been nled by respondent Bashir Ahmed through his attorney the address of the complainant reads as:- “Bashir Ahmed S/o Haji Nasim Ahmed aged about 24 years through attorney Hajir Nasim Ahmed resident of Nawagaon Dhamtari District Dhamtari, (C.G,)". The provisions of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 reads as follows:— 1 42. Cognizance of chances-notwithstanding anything contained in the. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1 973 (2 of 1 974)- (a) no court shall take cognizance of any op‘ence punishable under Section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque; (b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause-of-action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138: (Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had suWent, cause for not making a complaint within such period]. (c) No court inferior to that of a metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under sedion 138.] According to Section 142 of the Act of 1881 the cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 shall be taken by the Court only on the complaint in wn'tjng made by the payee or as the case may be the holder in due course of the cheque. In this case written complaint has been filed the address of complaint reveals that complaint has been med by respondent namely Bashir Ahmed through his attorney Haji Nasim Ahmed, this is not a case in which complainant has not filed complaint in writing or only attorney has filed the complaint. In the present case, I do not fmd any bar of taking cognizance by the complaint tiled by the complainant through his attorney. Therefore, l do not find any force in this petition. Consequently this petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.