Judgment ( 1. ) THIS order also governs disposal of aforesaid Misc. Criminal Case No. 3688/2002. This petition has been filed by applicant Gangadhar for quashing the proceedings pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sailana. ( 2. ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that non-applicant No. 1/shrenikmal filed criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against applicant and non-applicant No. 2 Renukanand. According to the complainants own showing, non-applicant No. 2/renukanand is the Proprietor of Laxmi Trading Company and the cheque in dispute was duly issued under the signature of non-applicant No. 2/renukanand in both the cases and the same bears seal of the Proprietor. Non-applicant No. 2, Renukanand is the Proprietor. Though the applicant Gangadhar is the brother of Renukanand but he has no concern with the business transaction arrived between non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2. The applicant, has falsely been implicated in the case just to harass him. Since it is not a partnership firm or a company nor the applicant is the partner of the firm, he could not have been impleaded as an accused especially when its a Proprietor firm and the cheque was specifically issued by its Proprietor Renukanand. The Counsel placed reliance on the following judgments :-- (1) G. Hari and others Vs. John Promod Alexander and another, 2000 Cr. LJ 1653; (2) G. Surya Prabhvathi Vs. Nekkanti Suhrahmanyeswara Rao, II (1999) BC 172. ( 3. ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for non-applicant No. 1 submits that the applicant is the Partner of Firm and he is also equally responsible for the transaction. Therefore, he has been rightly impleaded as an accused. ( 4. ) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicant No. 2 supports the case of the applicant. ( 5. ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the entire record, this Court is of the opinion that in the complaint, complainant non-applicant No. 1 Shrenikmal has nowhere stated that the applicant and the non-applicant No. 2 were running partnership firm and the applicant was its Partner. This pleading is completely missing in the complaint. On the contrary, in the complaint, it has been stated that Laxmi Trading Company is the Proprietary Firm and non-applicant No. 2/renukanand is the Proprietor of the said Firm. ( 6. This pleading is completely missing in the complaint. On the contrary, in the complaint, it has been stated that Laxmi Trading Company is the Proprietary Firm and non-applicant No. 2/renukanand is the Proprietor of the said Firm. ( 6. ) IN the light of the specific and clear pleading as well as the statement of the complainant, no case is made out against applicant for filing complaint against him by non- applicant No. 1. Neither he is signatory nor partner of the firm and as such he could not be arrayed as an accused in this complaint. The prosecution is nothing but sheer abuse of process of Court of law. Therefore, this Court does not deem it just and proper to allow proceeding on the complaint pending before the Trial Court. ( 7. ) CONSEQUENTLY, these petitions are allowed and the proceedings pending in the Trial Court so far as applicant is concerned, are hereby quashed. ( 8. ) COPY of this order be placed in connected M. Cr. C. No. 3687/2002. Certified copy be given on usual charges.