IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5818 of 1998 Suresh Prasad Suman, Son of Late Indra Prasad Pandey, Resident of Hazipur Town, P.S. Hazipur, District Vaishali at present posted in the State Bank of India, Patna Main Branch, Patna. ------ Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. M/s Wipro Limited, Road No.12 Rajendra Nagar, P.S. Kadamkuan, Kadam Kuan Patna-13 through Shri Shyam Dvivedi, Branch Manager. ---------- Opposite Parties ----------- 8 20.8.2009 The order taking cognizance for an offence under Section 138A of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’) is sought to be assailed by the petitioner only on one ground that even if the complaint petition is read as a whole, it would be found that the cheque, in question, was signed and delivered to the complainant, M/s Wipro Limited, by the accused no.1, namely, Manju Rani, who happens to be the wife of the petitioner. Therefore, it is being contended that the offence under Section 138A will only be made out against the person who had issued the cheques or whose cheque bounced and not against any other person even if it be accepted that the petitioner, being a messenger, had simply given that cheque. Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to defend the impugned order, 2 inasmuch as, no part of action of the petitioner as alleged in the complaint petition can at least amount to committing an offence by him under Section 138A of the Act. That being so, the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 138A of the Act is wholly impermissible and accordingly such prosecution only against the petitioner is hereby quashed. The court below is however directed to proceed as against the accused no.1, the wife of the petitioner and this order shall not affect the case of the complainant as against the accused, namely, Manju Rani. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is allowed only to the extent indicated above. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)