Judgment : G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J. 1. THIS writ petition by the petitioner is for the issue of a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in pursuance of the FIR No. 311 of 1992 of Panjagutta police Station and consequent investigation as void being illegal and unconstitutional. 2. THE facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are briefly as follows:- the petitioner A. Veerabhadra Rao and another E. Sridhar (Accused Nos. 1 and 2) approached the 3rd respondent (who is the complainant) for supply of cement and in that connection six cheques for a total value of Rs. 72,000/- have been issued by the accused in favour of the complainant. At the time of the issue of the above post-dated cheques, the accused represented to the complainant that the above cheques will be honoured on presentation. Believing the version of the accused, the complainant (R3) presented those post-dated cheques on the respective due dates in the Bank for collection. But all the above cheques were returned dishonoured by the bank with remarks "funds insufficient Refer to drawer". Thereupon, the 3rd respondent-complainant intimated the said fact to the accused through legal notice demanding payment of the amount covered by the cheques. But no efforts were made by the accused to make the payments. Thereupon, after following the prescribed procedure, the 3rd respondent- complainant filed a private complaint under Section 420. P. C. on the file of the v Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, who in turn forwarded the same to the station House Officer, Panjagutta Police Station for investigation under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C, which is under investigation. At this stage, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is A-l in the above complaint filed by R-3 (complainant ). 3. THE contention of the petitioner is that he is only a partner in the firm and a-2 is a servant in the firm, that A-2 has issued the cheques and that he is not liable for the cheques issued by A-2. Issuing of cheques by a servant on behalf of principal amounts to issuing of the cheques by the principal. At this stage it is not desirable to hold that the servant has issued the cheques in his individual capacity. It is a matter of investigation. Issuing of cheques by a servant on behalf of principal amounts to issuing of the cheques by the principal. At this stage it is not desirable to hold that the servant has issued the cheques in his individual capacity. It is a matter of investigation. It is the case of the 3rd respondent that both the petitioner, who is A-l, and E. Sridhar, A-2 both have approached the 3rd respondent and entered into negotiations with the latter for the purchase of cement and in that connection they have passed on six post-dated cheques for a total sum of Rs. 72,000/ -. The truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the accused is a matter of investigation. The petitioner is admittedly a partner of the firm. It cannot be said that the investigation that is being done on the complaint filed by the 3rd respondent is void on any count. 4. IT is further contended by the petitioner that though the offence said to have been committed by the accused falls under Section 138-A of the Negotiable instruments Act, the complaint is filed under Section 420. P. C. It is true that the complaint has been filed under Section 420. P. C. Matters of civil nature cannot be converted into criminal nature but the offence under Section 420 IPC is akin to the offence under Section 138-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In this case in the notice issued by the 3rd respondent it is clearly mentioned that all the six cheques were dishonoured for lack of sufficient funds and that at the time of issuing the cheques the accused are quite aware that they are not having sufficient funds in their account for encashment of the cheques. According to the allegations in the complaint the accused are alleged to have cheated the 3rd respondent-complainant. When there are allegations against the accused for an offence under Section 420 IPC nothing is prevented the complainant" from proceeding with the complaint for an offence under Section 420 IPC. More over, the complaint had already been referred to the police for investigation under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. So it is for the Investigating Officer to investigate into the matter and file a charge sheet under the appropriate provisions of law. More over, the complaint had already been referred to the police for investigation under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. So it is for the Investigating Officer to investigate into the matter and file a charge sheet under the appropriate provisions of law. On investigation if it has come to light that a case has been made out for an offence under Section 138-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, charge sheet will be filed there under. 5. RELYING upon the case reported in V. V. LN. Chary vs. N. A. Martin, Sri b. Veerbhadra Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the complaint should not have been entertained by the Magistrate. In that case post-dated cheques were given by the accused for goods already delivered. There was noallegation or averment in the complaint that the accused knew that he had no funds in his account or that he never intended to make the funds available in his account by the time the cheque was presented for payment. But in this case, it is the case of the complainant that at the time of the issue of the post-dated cheques, the accused represented to the complainant that the above cheques will be honoured on presentation and that the accused having knowledge that there are no sufficient funds to their credit have issued the cheques. The case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts of the case. From the allegations in the complaint it could be presumed that the accused must have been aware and even intended that the cheques would be and should be dishonoured. Whether a complaint should be quashed or should be considered on the basis of the allegations contained i therein and not on the defence that may be put forward by the accused. The allegations in the complaint prima facie show that the accused knew the facts of the cheques that they would be dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds. 6. IN the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the proceedings in pursuance of the FIR in Crime No. 311 of 1992 of Punjagutta P. S. cannot be held to be illegal and unconstitutional. There is no merit in the writ petition. 7. THE Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.