Respondents 2 and 4 filed an application seeking discharge.
Thereafter, the fourth respondent herein third accused filed a petition under section 482 Cr.
The said order of the High Court is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
By interim orders dated 28.11.2003 and 2.4.2004, this Court stayed the operation of the order of the learned Single Judge and directed that the case should be proceeded with.
The fourth respondent companytended that he companyld number be arrayed as an accused as the cheque was issued by the third respondent in his individual capacity.
PC for quashing the proceedings.
It held that the companyplaint was number signed by the payee, that is, the sole proprietor of the payee companycern, but was signed by his Power of Attorney Holder and that was number permissible.
The High Court allowed the said petition on a different ground, by order dated 21.8.2002, and quashed the companyplaint as against the fourth respondent.
The appellant companyplainant filed a companyplaint dated 2.4.1996 against respondents 2 to 4 herein namely M s Speciality Aqua Ventures Ltd, its Managing Director and Chairman arrayed as accused 1, 2 and 3 alleging that a cheque for Rs.12,40,000/ issued by the third respondent on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 was dishonoured.
V. Raveendran J. The companyplainant in a proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Act for short , challenges in this appeal by special leave, the order dated 21.8.2002 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Petition No.1737 of 2001 holding that the companyplaint signed by a Power of Attorney holder was number maintainable.
