S. Marimuthu, J.—This case has been filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 387 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Court No. 1 Fort Cochin. The obove said criminal prosecution was launched be the second respondent complainant on the ground that the petitioner-accused herein burrowed a sum of Rs. 90,000/- on 24.12.1995 and another sum of Rs. 90,000/- on 30.6.1996 agreeing to repay the same on 30.12,1996 with 24% interest per annum and as a security for the payment of the above principal amount, he issued two cheques and also a promissory not in favour of the second respondent. Since the payment was not made as promised, the criminal complaint was filed by the second respondent.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the complaint itself is not in accordance with the provisions laid down in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the learned Counsel, the cheque on the basis of which is criminal complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ought have been issued for the sole purpose of discharge of any previous debt or liability. In instant case, the complaint itself ex facie discloses that only as a security, the cheque is issued for the promissory note alleged to have been executed by the petitioner. For fortifying his contention, he also relies upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Taher N. Khambati v. Vinayak Enterprises, 1995 (1) KLJ 556 = 1 (1995) BC 473. There is held follows

"In the instant case, the appellant advance some money to the respondents obtained a pronote. It was stipulated that the respondents should pay inter every month. At the same time appellant-creditor took a blank signed cheque from the respondents with the understanding that the understanding that the complaint could fill other columns in the cheque and present it if the respondents committed default in payment in interest. So, the appellant has obtained this blank signed cheque with a view to make use of it, as a threat to the respondents for realisation of the amount. So it cannot be construed that the respondent had issued the cheque voluntarily for discharge of any debt or legal liability as envisaged under Section 138."

3. A comparative reading of the principle laid down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the mandatory provisions laid down in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is crystal clear that when a cheque has been issued as a security, no complaint will lie under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Yet another infirmity is found in this case, viz that the averment in the complaint would be that the cheque was issued only by the petitioner. On the other hand, a notice issued by the second respondent to the petitioner. Annexures II and III would disclose that the cheque was issued by the petitioner along with two other persons viz Ashok and Kamashi. In these circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel, I find no merit on the side of the second respondent to launch a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, no purpose will be served by permitting the Magistrate to proceed with the criminal prosecution. Therefore, it can be rightly interfered by this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

In the result the proceedings in C.C. 387/98 on the file of the Judicial First class Magistrate Court No. 1, Fort Cochin stands quashed, Crl. M.C. by allowed.

Cr. M.C. allowed.