Judgment : 1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 1447 of 1994 pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 2. The complainant is one M/s. Monara Chits (P) Ltd. The case of the complainant is that the accused entered into two chit transactions and became a successful bidder in the auction held on 20.12.1990 and 30.5.1991 and he committed default in payment of subsequent instalments and when the complainant approached the accused for collection the accused issued three post dated cheques drawn on Bank of Maharashtra dated on 12. 1993 and 12. 1993 and 12. 1993 for a total sum of Rs. 46,900 in discharge of the liability due by him on the two transactions to the complainant. The said cheques were presented at the Bank for collection on 12. 1993 and they were all returned on 112. 1993 on the ground that there were no sufficient funds in the account. Later a notice was issued by the complainant to the accused informing about the dishonouring of cheques and calling upon the accused to make payment of the amount due. The accused who received the notice did not comply with the demand nor send any reply. Therefore, the complaint was lodged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint has been taken on file and the sworn statement of one Muthusamy was recorded on 212. 1993. 3. The only ground upon which this application is sought to be sustained is that the complainant is neither the power of attorney agent nor an authorisation holder and that the petitioner is not the payee and therefore, the Court ought not have taken cognizance of the complaint. In the complaint the complainant has been described as M/s. Monara Chits (P) Ltd., No. 14, Sunitha Complex, Rameswaram Road, T. Nagar, Chennai. In the long cause title, after setting out the description of the complainant it is mentioned that it is represented in these proceedings by its Manager V. Muthusamy. In the sworn statement accorded the said Muthusamy, when examined has stated that he is the Manager of the Company. The Company is said to have been incorporated under the Companies Registration Act. In the sworn statement accorded the said Muthusamy, when examined has stated that he is the Manager of the Company. The Company is said to have been incorporated under the Companies Registration Act. In the counter filed by the respondent to this application, it is stated that the raid Muthusamy is the Managing Director and as the Managing Director he is the person responsible for the conduct of the business and that he is payee of the cheques concerned. In the complaint, as pointed out already, in the short cause title, the person who is authorised to represent the company is not mentioned. But in the long cause title, the description of the Company is given and it is added that it is represented by one Muthusamy. From the records I the complainant has not produced any documents then to substantiate his claim that he is the Managing Director or the Manager of the firm him. The resolution of the Board is not produced. If he is considered as a Manager, then there must be an authority by the Board authorising him to represent the company. Therefore, when the position of the person is disputed and when the complainant has not produced materials to show his capacity to represent the company or any proof that he is the Managing Director then it follows that the complaint is on the face of it is not maintainable. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a decision of this Court in Sagayadurai and others v. J.D. Electronic and other , 1997 (II) CTC 478,1 am of the opinion that the said decision will not apply to the facts of this case. In that case there was not dispute about the capacity of the person who laid the complaint. Here the capacity has not been substantiated and when it is submitted that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, without the resolution of the board and in the absence of proof the person mentioned in the complaint had no right to maintain the complaint and therefore, the lower court was not justified in taking cognizance the complaint. Therefore, in such circumstances, I am satisfied that the proceeding is liable to be quashed. 5. In the result, the application is allowed. The proceeding pending before the 14th Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in CC.No. 1447 of 1994 will stand quashed.