The Kerala High Court has declined to quash a cheque dishonour complaint merely because the authorised representative’s name was placed before the name of the complainant society in the cause title. The Court held that such an objection is essentially technical when the complaint, read as a whole, clearly establishes that the proceedings were instituted by the payee through its duly authorised representative.
Justice C.S. Dias delivered the judgment while dismissing a petition filed by an accused seeking to terminate proceedings pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kannur, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Background of the Cheque Dishonour Case
The complaint was filed by Ratheesh K., Secretary of the Educational Empowerment and Welfare Co-operative Society, Kannur, in connection with a cheque amounting to approximately ₹3.16 crore.
According to the complaint, the cheque had been issued by the accused towards discharge of a legally enforceable liability. However, the cheque was returned unpaid on account of insufficient funds, resulting in the initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The accused approached the Kerala High Court contending that the complaint was legally defective because it appeared to have been instituted by the Secretary in his individual capacity rather than by the Society, which was the actual payee of the cheque.
The petitioner argued that an office-bearer or authorised representative could not maintain a cheque dishonour complaint in his personal name merely by mentioning his official designation.
Society Had Authorised Its Secretary to Initiate Proceedings
The Society opposed the challenge and submitted that the complaint had, in substance, been filed on its behalf.
It pointed out that its bye-laws specifically authorised the Secretary to institute legal proceedings for and on behalf of the Society. The Society also relied upon a Managing Committee resolution dated September 29, 2021, by which Ratheesh K. had been expressly authorised to initiate the proceedings relating to the cheque.
The Society further submitted that the cheque itself had been issued in its favour and that the statutory notice was also issued by the Society.
The High Court examined the complaint and the documents accompanying it, including the agreement between the parties, the Society’s registration certificate, its bye-laws and amended bye-laws, and the Managing Committee resolution authorising the Secretary to institute legal proceedings.
Kerala High Court Relies on Supreme Court Precedent
While deciding the issue, the High Court considered the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bhupesh Rathod v. Dayashankar Prasad Chaurasia, which dealt with an objection concerning the manner in which an authorised representative was described in the cause title of a cheque dishonour complaint.
The Supreme Court had clarified that merely placing the name of an authorised representative before the name of the complainant company or entity does not automatically render the complaint fundamentally defective. The substance of the complaint and the authority of the person instituting the proceedings have to be considered.
Applying this principle, the Kerala High Court held that the complaint in the present case made it sufficiently clear that Ratheesh K. was acting in his official capacity as Secretary of the Society and not as an individual complainant.
Cause Title Defect Cannot Defeat Maintainable Prosecution
The Court noted that the transaction in question was between the accused and the Society and that the cheque had admittedly been drawn in favour of the Society.
It further observed that the statutory notice had been issued by the Society and the underlying agreement was also between the accused and the Society. These circumstances, when considered together with the Society’s bye-laws and the Managing Committee resolution, established that the Secretary had instituted the complaint on behalf of the payee.
The Court therefore rejected the argument that the proceedings had been initiated by Ratheesh K. in his personal capacity.
Importantly, the Court distinguished between a genuine lack of authority and a mere defect in the drafting or presentation of the cause title. According to the Court, the challenge in the present case was directed only at the form of the cause title, rather than at the competence or authority of the person who had filed the complaint.
The High Court held that such a hyper-technical objection should not be allowed to defeat an otherwise legitimate prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Petition Dismissed; Trial Court Asked to Expedite Proceedings
Finding no substance in the accused’s challenge, the Kerala High Court dismissed the petition and refused to quash the cheque dishonour proceedings.
The Court also directed the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kannur, to dispose of the complaint, which had remained pending since 2022, as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law.
Key Legal Takeaway
The ruling reinforces an important principle in cheque dishonour litigation: a technical defect in the cause title will not by itself invalidate a complaint when the underlying pleadings and documents establish that the payee instituted the proceedings through a duly authorised representative.
What matters is the substance of the complaint, the identity of the payee, and the authority of the person representing it. A drafting irregularity, without more, cannot ordinarily be used as a ground to frustrate a legally maintainable prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Case: Ratheesh K. / Educational Empowerment and Welfare Co-operative Society v. [Accused]
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Justice C.S. Dias
Provision: Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Cheque Amount: ₹3.16 crore
Case Title : T. Unnikrishnan v. Ratheek K and Anr Case Number : Crl.M.C No. 4003 of 2026