T. Ranga Rao, J - This revision is filed against the orders dated 12-7-1996 in Cr1.M.P. No. 2591/1996 in C.C. No. 11 11996 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate. Hyderabad.

2. The facts in giving rise to the filing of this revision are briefly, as follows:

The third respondent B. Krishana Rao filed complaint against M/s. Trishul Coal Services and Transporters, Hirhayathnagar, Hyderabad: B. Narsing Rao. Managing Partner and also against the petitioner herein Smt. B. Lakshmi w/o B. Narsing Rao, as partners of the said firm under Sections 138 and 142 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the Accused No.2, Managing Partner of Mis. TrishuI Coal Services & Transporters, has issued a cheque for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) on 15-4-1995 drawn on State Bank of India, to discharge the hand-loan taken from the complainant and the said cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement "Account Closed" and the accused failed to pay the amount inspite of notice.

The learned Magistrate took the case on file and issued summons to the Accused 1 to 3.

3. The petitioner, who is A-3 in C. C. No. 11 of 1996 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad filed a petition in Crl. M.P. No. 2591 I 1996 requesting to discharge her contending that she was implicated as an accused, as partner of the first respondent-firm and the complaint is vague and it does not specifically mention for implicating her as an accused in the said case.

4. The complainant filed a counter stating that she is a partner of the firm and every partner is liable for the liabilities of the company.

5. The learned Magistrate on considering the material on record dismissed the said petition.

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed this revision.

The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is unsustainable in law?

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no allegation in the complaint that the petitioner was incharge and responsible for carrying on the business of the firm and in the absence of any, such allegation, the petitioner cannot be tried for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when admittedly she has not issued the cheque. He further submitted that the learned Magistrate has erred in observing that he has no power to discharge the accused after issuing the summons and the Supreme Court has held that no specific provision is required for the Magistrate to drop the proceedings, that the order issuing the process is an interim order and not a judgment and hence, the observation of the learned Magistrate is incorrect, and he relied on a decision K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala and another1, wherein it is held as under:

"When the accused enters appearance in response to the summons, the Magistrate has to take proceedings under Chapter XX of the Code. But the need to try the accused arises when there is allegation in the complaint that the accused has committed the crime. If there is no allegation in the complaint involving the accused in the commission of the crime, it is implied that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to proceed against the accused.

It is open to the accused to plead before the Magistrate that the process against him ought not to have been issued. The Magistrate may drop the proceedings if he is satisfied on reconsideration of the complaint that there is no offence for which the accused could be tried. It is his judicial discretion. No specific provision is required for the Magistrate to drop the proceedings or rescind the process. The order issuing the process is an interim order and not a judgment. It can be varied or recalled. The fact that the process has already been issued is not bar to drop the proceedings if the complaint on the very face of it does not disclose any offence against the accused "

He further relied on a decision Mutthinedi Ramakrishna Chowdary v. Meenavalli Mausalayya Chowdary2.

7. The learned Counsel for the responde