HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2727, 2728 and 2729 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: This order disposes of all the three cases. 2. The petitioners are A.1 to A.4. Perhaps, A.6 is a dealer of A.1 firm. A.6 itself is a firm. A.1 is a firm. A.2 to A.4 are partners of A.1 firm. None amongst A.1 to A.4 are partners of A.6 firm. 3. A.6 firm allegedly issued a cheque. The cheque bounced. Contending that A.1 to A.4 as well as A.5 and A.6 were responsible to honour the cheque, the complaint was lodged against all of them. Curiously, the trial court took the cases on file and numbered them as Calendar Cases. 4. Normally a person who issued the cheque alone would be liable for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Perhaps A.6 is a dealer of A.1 firm. However, when A.6 issues a cheque and the cheque is dishonored, A.1 to A.4 cannot be held liable for the dishonour of the cheque. I do not go into the question as to whether the cheques were issued by A.6 firm towards the discharge of subsisting debt. Primary question is whether A.1 to A.4 are liable for punishment if the cheque issued by A.6 is dishonoured, where A.2 to A.4 are not partners of A.6 firm. I consider that as long as A.1 to A.4 are not partners of A.6, they are not answerable for the dishonour of the cheque issued by A.6. Consequently, the criminal proceedings against A.1 to A.4 are liable to be quashed. 5. Accordingly, the three Criminal Petition Nos.2727, 2728 and 2729 of 2008 are allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.Nos.401 of 2006, 462 of 2006 and 2718 of 2006 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. __________________ K.G. SHANKAR,J Date:16.11.2011. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2727, 2728 and 2729 of 2008 Date:16.11.2011. Gk.