It is the case of the petitioner/private complainant that the respondent is none other than her father-in-law. However, in the complaint, she would state that he is the father of her husband. There appears to be a strained relationship between them. It is the further case of the petitioner/private complainant that a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-, due and payable to her husband, was received by her father-in-law and the cheque in question was issued only for discharge of the said amount. The Trial Court has rightly observed that the petitioner does not have any power of attorney to act on behalf of her husband and admittedly, the amount alleged is due and payable to her husband. The Trial Court has correctly observed that in the absence of any authorization or power of attorney, the petitioner/private complainant is not entitled to file such a private complaint. The petitioner/private complainant, even as per her own admission, would state that the amount, due and payable under the impugned cheque, is the amount payable to her husband and therefore, the said amount, insofar as she is concerned, cannot be said to be legally enforceable one. This Court finds no error or infirmity in the reasons assigned by the Trial Court for dismissal of the complaint and acquitting the respondent/accused under Section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
