1. Petitioner-Mohammad Sharief Mir, figuring as accused in the complaint case No.40-A dated 21.06.2012 titled "Ramesh Kumar Vasandani Thanwardas v. Mohammad Sharief Mir" for offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A Cr.PC for quashing of proceedings in the afore-titled complaint case pending inquiry before learned Judicial Magistrate, Pulwama. 2. Respondent-Ramesh Kumar Vasandani claiming to be a fruit merchant/ commission agent carrying business at New Subzi Mandi Azadpur, Delhi under name and Style of "M/s Ramesh Kumar Thanwardass" - a registered firm having business establishments also at Apni Mandi Pachhar district Pulwama and fruit Mandi at Pulwama which are run by his attorney holder Gh. Mohammad Dar, filed complaint through his above named attorney holder alleging that in the year 2010, petitioner offered to supply fruits of that year and after settlement of accounts of sale proceeds of the fruits, an amount of Rs.50.00 lacs (fifty lacs) were found outstanding against the petitioner, who in discharge of his liability to pay the consideration amount issued three cheques in favour of respondent with following particulars ; S.No. Cheque Dated Amount of each Cheque 01. 32175520 15.01.12 Rs.10.00 lacs 02. 32175521 15.02.12 Rs.15.00 lacs 03. 32175522 15.03.12 Rs.11.00 lacs Rs.36.00 lacs 3. The Cheques were issued in the name of the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited Branch Drabgam District Pulwama where the petitioner was operating account No. CD-394 favouring the respondent firm for encashment and collection. It was further alleged in the complaint that the aforesaid cheques when presented for encashment bounced on account of insufficiency of funds in the account of petitioner. The Jammu and Kashmir Bank Branch Azadpur, Delhi was alleged to have issued a memorandum dated 19.04.2012 in this regard. Respondent claims to have informed the petitioner about dishonouring of the cheques and demanded liquidation of the amount of cheques. He also claims to have served statutory Demand Notice on the petitioner on 04.05.2012 but despite service of notice, petitioner did not make payment. Thus, respondent was left with no option but to file the complaint. 4. Learned Magistrate, after examining the complaint and applying his mind to the material placed on the record of the complaint case, was of the view that there was ground for proceeding against the accused - petitioner herein and accordingly issued process against him. Thus, respondent was left with no option but to file the complaint. 4. Learned Magistrate, after examining the complaint and applying his mind to the material placed on the record of the complaint case, was of the view that there was ground for proceeding against the accused - petitioner herein and accordingly issued process against him. Aggrieved thereof petitioner seeks quashment of proceedings in the complaint case on the ground that due to unfavourable climatic conditions, fruit production was not good. Thus, he could not supply and forward the requisite quantity of fruit to respondent who called him to Delhi, humiliated him and obtained three dateless cheques from him on the promise that when the fruit is forwarded, the cheques would be returned. Petitioner's case is that he sent huge quantity of fruit and asked the respondent to settle the accounts, which annoyed the respondent, who served Demand Notice against petitioner only to exploit him. It is contended on behalf of petitioner that the Trial Court could not have taken cognizance of offence on the basis of statement of attorney holder of respondent, that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction and that the respondent had practiced fraud and deception in obtaining signatures of petitioner on undated cheques. 5. Heard and considered. 6. It is well settled that the power of quashing criminal proceedings has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. A complaint cannot be quashed merely because a civil remedy is available to the complainant. Issue of process cannot be quashed on the ground that the defence version discloses a bonafide civil dispute. However, the Court may quash the proceedings if the complaint does not disclose any offence. The Court can consider only the allegations in the complaint and the materials produced by the complainant for finding out whether any criminal offence is made out which justifies issue of process. However, no interference is warranted on the grounds involving facts even if points of law are also intermixed. 7. In the instant case, the Magistrate has recorded satisfaction on the basis of allegations in the complaint and the documents produced in support thereof. On a cursory look at the complaint and the documents supporting the same, it cannot be said that the commission of offence alleged is not made out. 7. In the instant case, the Magistrate has recorded satisfaction on the basis of allegations in the complaint and the documents produced in support thereof. On a cursory look at the complaint and the documents supporting the same, it cannot be said that the commission of offence alleged is not made out. In so far as the plea of filing of complaint through attorney holder of petitioner firm is concerned, be it noticed that the cheques alleged to have bounced on account of insufficiency of funds in the account of petitioner stand in the name of respondent firm, which is the payee. The complaint has been filed in the name of payee firm -- M/s Ramesh Kumar Thanwardas. It is permissible to lodge complaint in the name of a proprietary concern/firm and attorney holder in the firm can maintain the complaint. This view is fortified by the following observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in "Shankar Finance and Investments v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others" reported in AIR 2009 SC 422 ; "10. Section 142 (Negotiable Instruments Act) requires that the complainant should be payee. The payee is M/s Shankar Finance & Investments. Therefore, in a criminal complaint relating to an offence under Section 138 of the Act, it is permissible to lodge the complaint in the name of the proprietary concern itself." The Hon'ble Apex Court further held; 12. This Court has always recognized that the power-of-attorney holder can initiate criminal proceedings on behalf of his principal." The Hon'ble Apex Court while dwelling upon the aspect of examination of complainant under Section 200 of Cr.PC [Refer JK Laws 2nd Ed. 2013 Vol. 6 P-221] has observed; 15. Where the proprietor of the proprietary concern has personal knowledge of the transaction and the proprietor has signed the complaint, he has to be examined under Section 200 of the Code. A power-of-attorney holder of the complainant who does not have personal knowledge, cannot be examined. But where the attorney holder of the complainant is in charge of the business of the complainant payee and the attorney holder alone is personally aware of the transactions, and the complaint is signed by the attorney holder on behalf of the complainant payee, there is no reason why the attorney holder cannot be examined as the complainant." 8. But where the attorney holder of the complainant is in charge of the business of the complainant payee and the attorney holder alone is personally aware of the transactions, and the complaint is signed by the attorney holder on behalf of the complainant payee, there is no reason why the attorney holder cannot be examined as the complainant." 8. The law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly knocks the bottom of the contention raised by the petitioner. The complaint specifically mentions the factum of attorney Gh.Mohammad Dar being incharge of the affairs of business establishments of complainant firm at Apni Mandi, Pachhar District Pulwama and Fruit Mandi at Pulwama. It is also specific in regard to the attorney holder being duly authorized to file the complaint on behalf of the complainant firm. Thus, no fault can be found with the filing of complaint by attorney holder, who claimed to be conversant with the transactions attending upon the issuance and bouncing of the dishonoured cheques. 9. In so far as the other grounds urged for quashing of proceedings are concerned, the same involve questions of fact which can only be decided at the trial. Petitioner shall be at liberty to raise such grounds before the Trial Court at appropriate stage. 10. No case for invoking inherent powers of this Court having been made out by the petitioner, the petition is dismissed.