J.B.Pardiwala, J.

By this application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, the applicant-original accused No.3, seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.633 of 2017 in the court of the 11th Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot arising from the complaint filed by the respondent No.1-original complainant for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. It appears from the materials on record that the respondent No.1-H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. filed a complaint under section 138 of the Act against a partnership firm and its partners. The partnership firm is the accused No.1 in the complaint and the accused Nos. 2 to 11 are the partners of the firm. The applicant herein is the accused No.3 in the complaint. The complaint reads as under;

"1. The complainant Bank is registered and incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956, having its Rajkot office at 2nd Floor, Opp. Mahatma Gandhi High School, Rajkot. Complainant Bank is in business of providing various loans. The present complaint is filed by the authorized officer who is authorized to file such complaint.

2. That the accused approached the complainant Bank for the purpose of procurement of Finance by the way of TERM LOAN and at the request of the accuse, financial assistance was provided to them under agreement No.81034097. At the time of procurement of finance, the accused accepted all the terms and conditions stipulated by the complainant Bank.

3. That, accused No.1 is borrower of the Term Loan Granted through their partners who are engaged in the day to day activity of the firm, whom are mentioned as accused No.2 to 11. Moreover, Accused No.2 to 11 have also stood as the co-borrower of the financial assistance obtained by them.

4. The accused gave cheque as per following details, duly signed by the accused towards the legal debt which the accused had incurred on account of financial assistance provided to the accused by the complainant. Accused also gave assurance that, said cheque will be honoured on presentation.

Cheque No.	Cheque Date	Drawn On	Amount	Reason	Memo Date
18	05/11/16	HDFC Bank	Rs.37305 7/-	Insufficient Funds	05.11.2016
19			Rs.37305 7/-		05.11.2016
20			Rs.37305 7/-		05.11.2016

5. The complainant presented the said cheque with its Banker for realization and the same was dishonoured by the accused's Banker as per above mentioned detail. The said cheque was presented in account maintained at Rajkot and the same was dishonoured in Rajkot.

6. Upon receipt of the said memo, the accused was called upon by statutory demand notice dated 29.11.2016 within the prescribed limitation period, to make payment of the aforesaid amount within the stipulated time. The said notice has been served upon accused on or around 03.12.2016 and they have replied the same through their Advocate through email of our Advocate. However, the accused failed to make payment. Hence, the accused has committed offence as prescribed u/s.138 r/w. 142 of the N.I. Act 1881.

7. The complainant submits that as the complainant maintains their account in the Bank which is within the jurisdiction of this Court, therefore Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try the case and punish the accused if he is found guilty under the provisions of the said Act."

3. Mr. Aditya A. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant-accused vehemently submitted that the complaint under section 138 of the Act is not maintainable as his client is neither the signatory to the cheques in question nor the partner of the firm. According to the learned counsel, the applicant was one of the sleeping partners in the partnership firm. The