THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7567 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners – accused 1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.267 of 2009 on the file of IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad, arising out of a private complaint. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the disputed cheque is undisputedly signed by the first petitioner on behalf of Manish Art & Printers and the second petitioner Brahmateja Paper Products and that the third petitioner, who is the proprietor of the second petitioner, though the wife of the first petitioner has nothing to do with Manish Art & Printers. As such, petitioners 2 and 3 are not liable. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent is that in fact the amount is due by second petitioner too, as such, third petitioner who is the proprietor of second petitioner is also liable. 5. Though the business was being done on the names of two firms, i.e., Manish Art & Printers and Brahmateja Paper Products, the first petitioner alone was doing the business, as the first petitioner is the husband of the third petitioner. Still, as the cheque is issued only by the first petitioner specifically mentioning that the same was issued on behalf of Manish Art & Printers, I am not inclined to accept the contention that petitioners 2 and 3 are also liable. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contend that the amount payable was in fact paid by the petitioners, as the practice was, first to issue a cheque and after the payment was received by way of draft, the endorsement used to be made in the books of account, the cheque used to be returned, in the present case, the cheque was not returned and basing on the same, a complaint is filed. But, this is a question of fact that has to be proved during the course of trial. As such, I do not intend to express any opinion on this aspect. 7. Considering the circumstances, the Criminal Petition is allowed to the extent of petitioners 2 and 3 only and the proceedings against petitioners 2 and 3 in C.C.No.267 of 2009 on the file of IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad, are quashed. Insofar as the first petitioner is concerned, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ___________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 14th December 2009 Rns