This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., by the petitioner/A1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.208 of 2008 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chilakaluripet (for short, the trial Court).

2. The 1st respondent-complainant lodged a private complaint before the trial Court, under Section 200 Cr.P.C., stating that Accused No.2 approached him for purchasing of De-Oiled Rice Bran, in the name of the petitioner/A1, on credit basis, and the complainant accepted the proposal of accused No.2 and, thereafter, the complainant has sent the De-Oiled Rice Bran in vehicles on different invoices, and also maintained a Khata in the name of the accused. It is further stated that the accused Nos.1 and 2 received the De-Oiled Rice Bran on various dates but they failed to make payment. When the complainant demanded the accused to make payment, the accused No.2 issued a Cheque bearing No.333040 dated 15.05.2007 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Eluru Branch, as part-payment. The complainant presented the cheque in the Indian Bank, Chilakaluripet Branch, for encashment, but the cheque was returned on 26.05.2007 with a memo Funds Insufficient. The complainant informed the accused about the return of cheque by the Bank due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused. But the accused kept silent and did not make the payment. The complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused on 19.06.2007 demanding them to make the payment due, but they did not respond and did not pay the amount. Therefore, the complainant filed a private complaint before the trial Court alleging that the accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the NI Act). The complaint was taken on file as C.C.No.208 of 2008. Seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A1, this criminal petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel Sri T. Rama Koteswar Rao for the petitioner; learned counsel Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy for the respondent No.1-complainant; and learned Public Prosecutor representing the State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation made by the complainant that the De-Oiled Rice Bran was purchased by the accused No.2 in the name of accused No.1, is not correct. It is further submitted that the cheque in question was signed and issued by accused No.2 and that the petitioner/A1 is in no way connected with the issuance of the cheque and, therefore, there is no liability against the petitioner/A1 in this case and, therefore, there is no cause of action for the complainant to fasten liability to the petitioner/A1 and the prosecution launched against the petitioner basing on the private complaint filed by the complainant is a sheer abuse of process of Court, and hence the proceedings in C.C.No.208 of 2008 against the petitioner/A1 are liable to be quashed.

5. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgment passed by the High Court of Patna in Sarita Kumari v. State of Bihar, 2014 LawSuit (Pat) 320, and drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph 17 which reads as under:

“17. The matter went in appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. After hearing the parties, while allowing the appeal the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 27 held as under:-

"In the light of the above discussion, we hold that under Section 138 of the Act, it is only the drawer of the cheque who can be prosecuted. In the case on hand, admittedly, the appellant is not a drawer of the cheque and she has not signed the same. A copy of the cheque was brought to our notice, though it contains the name of the appellant and her husband, the fact remains that her husband alone had put his signature. In addition to the same, a bare reading of the complaint as also the affidavit of examination-in- chief of the complainant and a bare look at the cheque would show