JUDGMENT :- The accused in C.C.No.769/2004, pending on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, has come forward with this present petition under Section 482 for quashing the said criminal proceedings. 2. The above said case was taken on file by the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai based on the private complaint of the Respondent herein for an alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was preferred based on the dishonour of a cheque dated 12.09.2003 drawn on Punjab and Sindh Bank, Trivandrum bearing Cheque No.059357 for a sum of Rs.2,40,000/-. According to the averments found in the complaint when the cheque was presented for collection, the same was returned with an endorsement "funds insufficient". On receipt of the bankers memo dated 26.09.2003 intimating the dishonour of the cheque necessary demand was made by issuing a statutory notice. After waiting for the expiry of the statutory time, the complaint has been preferred as the demand made in the notice was not complied with. 3. The act of the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate in taking cognisance of the offence based on the private complaint is questioned by the petitioner/accused on the following grounds:- (a) The complaint has been preferred by the holder of Power of Attorney of the complainant and not by the complainant itself; (b) Though paragraph 3 of the complaint refers to the dishonour of a cheque concerned in this case, paragraph 4 and subsequent paragraphs indicate that two cheques were allegedly issued by the petitioner herein and both the cheques were dishonoured. The failure to furnish the particulars of the second cheque, according to the petitioner is an error apparent on the face of the record; and (c) There was suppression of a fact that there was a hire purchase agreement relating to which the respondent obtained blank signed cheques which will probablise the case of the petitioner that the said blank cheques have been used for preferring the present complaint. 4. This court heard the submissions made by Mr.C.Kulanthaivel, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the records. 5. 4. This court heard the submissions made by Mr.C.Kulanthaivel, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the records. 5. Besides reiterating the ground of attack contained in the Criminal Original Petition, the learned counsel for the Petitioner also contended that a suit filed based on a Promissory Note allegedly executed by the Petitioner herein in discharge of an alleged hand loan was dismissed by the Civil Court subsequent to the filing of the present Criminal Original Petition and that the judgment in the Civil Court and the evidence adduced in the said Civil Case by the respondent herein would make all the more probable the case of the petitioner herein that the Pronote and the cheques were obtained as blank Pronote and blank cheques in connection with the hire purchase agreement between the petitioner and the respondent herein. The dismissal of a Civil suit based on a Promissory Note may at best be a ground of defence that can be taken by the Petitioner herein in the criminal case instituted against him. The same cannot be a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. 6. The next ground of attack that the failure to furnish the particulars of the second cheque referred to in paragraph 4 of the complaint and subsequent paragraphs is an error apparent on the face of record cannot be countenanced. Of course, the complaint has been drafted in such a manner to suggest that there were more than one cheques issued by the petitioner herein and those cheques when presented were dishonoured. A payee in whose favour more than one cheque have been issued by the very same drawer can elect to prosecute the drawer for the dishonour of all the cheques in one and the same complaint if all the cheques were issued in the course of one and the same transaction. He can also elect to prosecute the drawer separately for the dishonour of each cheque. The present complaint has been preferred based on the dishonour of Cheque No. 059357 dated 12.09.2003 alone. The same shows the election of the Respondent herein to prosecute the petitioner herein for the dishonour of the above said cheque alone. He can also elect to prosecute the drawer separately for the dishonour of each cheque. The present complaint has been preferred based on the dishonour of Cheque No. 059357 dated 12.09.2003 alone. The same shows the election of the Respondent herein to prosecute the petitioner herein for the dishonour of the above said cheque alone. Therefore, this court is not in a position to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the failure to furnish the particulars of other cheques amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record, based on which the complaint could be quashed. 7. The next and more serious contention raised by the petitioner is that the complaint is not maintainable because the complaint has been preferred not by the complainant itself but by the holder of Power of Attorney, that too without accompanied by an affidavit signed by the Principal. The learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court (S.R.Singharavelu, j.,) in Y.Vijayalakshmi @ Rambha Vs. Manickam Narayanan, Proprietor, Seventh Channel Communications. Rep. by its Power of Attorney Agent, Thanigaivelan, 121, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai – 600 004 reported in 2005 (3) CTC 480. The said view expressed by the learned single judge was subsequently dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in K.Gopalakrishnan Vs. Karunakaran, represented by the Power of Attorney Holder, Dhandapani reported in 2006 (4) CTC 333 . The Division Bench held the view expressed by the learned single Judge did not reflect the correct view of law in this regard. In view of the said view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court, the above said contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner herein does not hold water in it and hence deserves to be rejected. However it is made clear that all the objections raised by the petitioner in the present petition may be good grounds of defence for the accused to be raised in the trial of the case for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but, they cannot be accepted as grounds on which the complaint itself could be quashed. 8. For all the reasons stated above, this court holds that there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.