IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1804 OF 2010 Between: Alluri Vijay Babu …Petitioner And 1. Desai Karanam Pavan Kumar 2. The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. … Respondents This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1804 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in C.C.No.70 of 2008, on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ananthapur. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1392 of 2008 in that criminal case for his discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C. The question of invoking Section 245 Cr.P.C. in a summons case may not arise. Section 245 Cr.P.C. can be invoked only in a warrant case. 2. The ground on which the petitioner/accused sought for his discharge is that the dishonoured cheque was drawn by him on behalf of M/s. Nalanda Institute of Consultancy for Education which is a partnership firm and that, therefore, in the absence of impleading the firm as one of the accused in the criminal case, the petitioner alone cannot be prosecuted. It is further contended that the first respondent/complainant filed civil suit for recovery of money based on the same cause of action against the firm as well as the petitioner and that, therefore, this criminal case filed subsequent to it is not maintainable. 3. Even though the civil suits for recovery of money based on the same cause of action is filed in the year 2007, there is no legal embargo for the complainant to institute the criminal case against the concerned for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 4. As per Section 141 (1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, not only the company/firm as well as every person at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of and was responsible to the company/firm for conduct of its business, is liable. 5. According to the complainant, it was the petitioner who signed the cheque on behalf of the firm. There is no doubt that the petitioner is Managing Partner of the firm. Therefore, he cannot escape liability in view of Section 141 (1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant being the dominus litus, is entitled to prosecute the persons at his choice by deleting other persons from the array of accused. Thus, there are no grounds under law for discharge of the petitioner from the case. The order passed by the lower Court is in accordance with law. 6. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 28, 2010 KL HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1804 OF 2010 December 28, 2010 KL