THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.922 of 2008 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings against petitioner/A.2 in C.C.No.484 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner/A.2 and another before the learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’). According to the complainant, A.1 evinced interest to act as Constituent of the complainant company and entered into an agreement on 15.11.2005 along with A.2, and in the course of the business transactions, the accused fell in arrears of Rs.95,375/- and in discharge of the same, A.2 issued a cheque dated 22.05.2006 for Rs.1,50,000/- and when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured with an endorsement “payment stopped by the drawer”. It is further alleged that subsequently, A.1 came forward for negotiations and as a token of settlement, A.1 issued cheque for Rs.95,375/- vide cheque No.000645, dated 19.06.2006 drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd, Warangal, in discharge of legally enforceable debt of A.2 and when the complainant presented the cheque for encashment, again it was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient” vide memo dated 31.07.2006. After issuing a statutory legal notice dated 21.08.2006, complaint was filed. Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the complaint in C.C.No.484 of 2007 and issued process. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner – A.2 filed the present petition. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that she is not the drawer of the cheque and even according to the averments in the complaint, it was only A.1, who issued the subject cheque, which is said to have been dishonoured and therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act are not attracted against the petitioner/A.2. 5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon a decision in BONTHAGORLA NAGA LAKSHMI v. YARASANI LINGAIAH AND ANOTHER[1] wherein this Court held that where a person is not a signatory to the dishonoured cheque, such person cannot be proceeded against criminally. In the above cited case also, it was A.1 therein, who gave cheque for Rs.30,000/- and the petitioner therein who was wife of A.1 sought quashing of the proceedings against her on the ground that she was not the drawer of the cheque. This Court held that the criminal liability cannot be fastened on the petitioner/A.2 therein for the offence under Section 138 of the Act inasmuch as the ingredients of Section 138 of the Act are not attracted insofar as the petitioner therein is concerned. 6. The case on hand also stands in similar set of circumstances as the one in the decision referred to supra. Even according to the complainant, the subject cheque for Rs.95,375/- dated 19.06.2006 was issued only by A.1 but not by A.2. The averment that the earlier cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- dated 22.05.2006 issued by A.2 was dishonoured and subsequently in pursuance of negotiations, the cheque in question was issued by A.1 does not enure to the benefit to the complainant inasmuch as the present case is filed only for dishonour of the cheque dated 19.06.2006 which is said to have been issued only by A.1 and not by A.2. Under these circumstances, no criminal liability can be fastened on the petitioner/A.2 who is admittedly not the drawer of the subject cheque. 7. Learned counsel for the first respondent/complainant contended that besides the offence under Section 138 of the Act, there were also trapping of offence under Section 420 IPC and the prosecution is maintainable in respect of the said offence. A perusal of the complaint would go to show that it was filed only for the offences under Sections 138 and 142 of the Act, but not under Section 420 IPC. Further, the averments of the complaint do not disclose any allegations pertaining to the offence under Section 420 IPC insofar as the petitioner/A.2 is concerned. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent/complainant that the offence under Section 420 IPC is attracted, is untenable. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, further proceedings in C.C.No.484 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, against the petitioner/A.2 are not sustainable and they are accordingly quashed. 9. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J 31st DECEMBER, 2009. kvni [1] 2006(2) ALT (Crl.) 155 (A.P.)