Judgment : PRATAP SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THE accused in C. C. Nos. 8223, 8224 and 8225 of 1992 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras has filed these petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records in the above cases and quash the same. ( 2 ) SHORT facts are : In C. C. No. 8223 of 1992, the respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act (which I shall hereinafter refer to as the Act ). The allegations in it are briefly as follows: the Complainant is the managing partner of M/s Sri Krishna Pharmaceutical distributors. The accused A. Raman is the proprietor of M/s Sri Janaki pharmacy. The Complainant delivered some goods to the accused, as per the orders placed by the accused. As part-payment thereof, the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 1,524. 12 dated 12. 9. 1992. It was presented for encashment. It was returned with an endorsement "exceeds arrangement". The complainant issued a statutory notice on 24. 9. 1992 calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Even after the receipt of the notice, the accused had not paid the said sum. Hence, the complaint. In C. C. No. 8224 of 1992, the respondent has filed the complaint against the petitioner on similar allegations with regard to the cheque dated 11. 9. 1992, for Rs. 1175. 45. In C. C. No. 8225 of 1992, the respondent has filed the complaint against the petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of the Act on similar allegations with regard to the cheque dated 2. 8. 1992 for rs. 3,703. 38. ( 3 ) MR. Anand, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner for Mr. G. M. Syed Fazhruddin, would submit that in these complaints, the petitioner has been described as "sri Janaki Pharmacy" represented by proprietor A. Raman, 299, ist Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Aminjikarai, Madras-24 and that the complaints can be laid only as against A. Raman who is proprietor of Sri Janaki pharmacy and not against Sri Janaki Pharmacy. G. M. Syed Fazhruddin, would submit that in these complaints, the petitioner has been described as "sri Janaki Pharmacy" represented by proprietor A. Raman, 299, ist Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Aminjikarai, Madras-24 and that the complaints can be laid only as against A. Raman who is proprietor of Sri Janaki pharmacy and not against Sri Janaki Pharmacy. He would add that proprietary concern is not the legal entity, apart from the proprietor and that these complaints are not filed against any legal entity and as such they are liable to be quashed. ( 4 ) THOUGH the case is adjourned on two occasions for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent, has chosen to be absent. ( 5 ) AS per Section 138 of the Act, only the drawer of the cheque can be prosecuted. In the complaint in paragraph 2, it is stated that the accused is a. Raman. In paragraph 4, it is stated that the accused issued a cheque. From the above, it transpires that it was A. Raman was the drawer of the cheque. But the case is being proceeded with against Sri Janaki Pharmacy, represented by proprietor A. Raman. Only the drawer of the cheque can be prosecuted and as such, the proceedings against Sri Janaki Pharmacy who is arrayed as the accused is to be quashed. ( 6 ) IN the result, all the petitions are allowed quashing the proceedings in c. C. Nos. 8223 to 8225 of 1992 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, saidapet, Madras. Petitions allowed.