S. R. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner invokes the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 Cr. PC for quashing of the proceedings in CC No. 333 of 1999 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, nampally, Hyderabad. ( 2 ) IT is necessary to have a brief resume of the background of the facts of the case to appreciate the contentions canvassed. The petitioner deals with the sale of computers and is the distributor for Andhra pradesh Region for Leo Computers. Sanchayani, Madras is the All India distributors for Leo computers. The Head office of Leo Computers is Taipee Taivan. The petitioner is the sole distributor for entire Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner in turn has appointed a few dealers in Andhra pradesh region for supply of computers and always insists advanced post-dated cheques to supply computers to the dealers. The petitioner has opened cash credit account no. 50584 during September 1998 with the state Bank of Hyderabad, Sanjivareddi Nagar branch and since then it has been doing all transactions of the petitioner with the said first respondent. A loan of five lakh rupees sanctioned for running business. The petitioner has furnished 92 lakh worth properties as security to the bank. While the matters stood thus, one of the dealers of the petitioner at Vijayawada by name Somes-war rao had placed order for supply of 12 computers systems with the petitioner. The petitioner has collected post dated cheque bearing No. 337416 dated 23-10-1998 for a sum of six lakh rupees from the dealer. It was drawn on Punjab and Sindh bank, vijayawada for a sum of Rs. 6 lakh by someswar Rao. After collecting the cheques from the dealer, 12 computers systems were supplied. In order to pay to Sanchayani leo Computers, Madras the petitioner has approached the bank for discounting the cheque. The petitioner has to pay the same to the said Sanchayani Leo Computers, madras. On the strength of Field Officer s report the Branch Manager was pleased to credit the cheque in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner has discounted the cheque and paid money to Sanchayani for supply of 12 computers. The dealer at vijayawada cancelled the order for purchase of 12 computers by which time the petitioner already purchased 12 computers systems by paying cash. The dealer at vijayawada cancelled the order for purchase of 12 computers by which time the petitioner already purchased 12 computers systems by paying cash. Immediately it approached Sanchayani Leo Computers, madras to take back the systems and pay back the amount collected. Hence the sanchayani Leo computers, Madras as collected the computers from the petitioner but they did not return the money collected from the petitioner and later they cancelled the distributorship of its computers. The respondent bank deposited the cheque bearing No. 334717 dated 23-10-1998 for clearance issued by Someswar Rao the dealer of the petitioner drawn in favour of the petitioner and the cheque was returned unpaid stating the reason as insufficient funds. The respondent bank immediately informed the petitioner regarding the dishonour of the cheque. It is represented by the petitioner to the bank about the cancellation of orders placed by its dealer someswar Rao and by that time the bank has paid the discounted amount to sanchayani Leo computers, Madras and he has sought time for settling the transaction. The petitioner requested the bank to clear the amounts towards the discounted cheque as securities of the petitioner worth of nearly Rs. 92 lakh are lying with the bank. Thereupon the first respondent bank issued notice on 12-3-1999 calling upon the petitioner to pay the cheque amount immediately. A detailed reply was given on 10-4-1999 and the petitioner has subsequently paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on 20-7-1999 and another sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 29-9-1999 towards the discounted cheque. The bank has filed criminal complaint in c. C. 333 of 1999 before the V Metropolitan magistrate, Hyderabad invoking the provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable instrument Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this criminal petition. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the bank has no right to present a complaint against him under Section 138 of N. I. Act. It is also further contended that G. P. A. holder has no right to present a complaint and hence the complaint is not maintainable. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the first respondent has contended that the bank is entitled to present a complaint under section 138 as it is a holder in due course. It is also further contended that G. P. A. holder has no right to present a complaint and hence the complaint is not maintainable. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the first respondent has contended that the bank is entitled to present a complaint under section 138 as it is a holder in due course. It is also contended by the respondents counsel that it is a case of dishonouring of the cheque and the bank is entitled to proceed against the petitioner. The learned public Prosecutor has contended that it is not a fit case where inherent powers can be exercised to quash the proceedings. ( 5 ) ADVERTING to the said contentions the Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision reported in Shridi Sai Steel balu Complex, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2002 (1) ALD (Crl ). 630 (A. P.), to the effect that holder in due course of negotiable instrument cannot maintain a complaint under Section 138 of negotiable Instrument Act. My attention is drawn by the respondent s Counsel to the decision reported in S. P. Sampathy v. Manju Gupta, 2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 619 (A. P.), whereunder the Division Bench of this Court has categorically stated that the complaint can be filed for the offence under section 138 of N. I. Act either by payee or the holder in due course. In view of the Division Bench decision in Sampath s case (supra) enunciating the law under section 138 of N. I. Act it must be taken that the decision rendered in Shridi Sai Steel complex s case (supra) is no longer good law. It is clear from the decision of supreme Court reported in Punjab and sind Bank v. Vinkar Sahakari Bank Limited, 2001 (7) SCC 721 , that the complaint by holder for dishonour of pay order is maintainable. It is clearly stated under section 138 that payee or holder in due course can always make a demand for payment of the said amount for which the cheque has been issued by giving notice in writing. It is the payee or the holder in due course that are entitled to present the complaint under Section 142 of N. I. Act. It is clearly stated in Section 142 of N. I. Act that the holder in due course is also entitled to present a complaint. It is the payee or the holder in due course that are entitled to present the complaint under Section 142 of N. I. Act. It is clearly stated in Section 142 of N. I. Act that the holder in due course is also entitled to present a complaint. In view of the provisions of Section 138 and in view of the principles enunciated by the Supreme court as well as the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court it must be taken that decision rendered in credential Finance Limited v. State of maharashtra, 2000 (2) ALD (Crl.) 827 (Bom.), is not good law. The complaint is certainly maintainable by holder in due course when the cheque was drawn and presented to the bank who paid amount after purchasing the cheque. ( 6 ) IT has to be considered whether the bank can proceed against a person who presented the cheque into the bank. A close scrutiny of Section 138 makes it clear that the drawer of the cheque is always liable for payment of the amount for dishonour of cheque but strangely he is shown as witness in this complaint instead of showing him as an accused. Section 138 does not empower to proceed against any person who has not drawn the cheque and only in case of companies it is permitted to proceed against the partners subject to certain conditions namely they are responsible for conducting of business of the company and when there is connivance and consent and negligence is attributed to them. There is no such averment found in the complaint. The bank s right is only to proceed against the drawer of the cheque under Section 138 and it has no right to proceed against the third parties. The bank has to work out its remedies in civil court and cannot invoke the provisions of section 138 of N. I. Act against persons who have not drawn the cheque and only presented cheque to the bank for collection. As the petitioner is not the drawer of the cheque, the holder in due course has no right to proceed against the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be quashed. As the petitioner is not the drawer of the cheque, the holder in due course has no right to proceed against the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be quashed. ( 7 ) IN the result the petition is allowed and the complaint filed against the petitioner in CC No. 333 of 1999 on the file of the fifth Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, hyderabad is quashed.