J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. The respondent No. 2, although served with the notice of rule issued by this Court, yet has chosen not to remain present either in person or through an advocate and oppose this application.

2. By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-original accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 48946 of 2015 pending in the court of the learned 4th Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat arising from a complaint filed under section 138 of the N.I. Act.

3. It appears from the materials on record that the cheque, which came to be dishonoured, was issued by the applicant herein in his capacity as one of the partners of the partnership firm running in the name of Shlok Enterprise. Indisputably, the partnership firm has not been arraigned as an accused in the complaint. In such circumstances, the applicant cannot be held vicariously liable under section 141 of the N.I. Act. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 5