ORDER 1. This is a petition under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the impugned order dated 26.7.2004 passed in Criminal Revision No. 311 of 2003 by Viiith Additional Sessions Judge, Indore and direction to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore for conducting a denovo adjudication of Criminal Case No.109 of 2001, a complaint filed by petitioner under S. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Act' for brevity) against the respondent which has been dismissed by learned Magistrate on the ground that the said complaint filed under the provisions of S. 138 of the Act is not maintainable. 2. Short facts of the case are that petitioner Manoj Kasliwal being Managing Director of M/s. Puma Ispat Trading (P) Ltd. sold Steel Sheets to the respondent in normal course of business who in turn issued a cheque of Rs. 4,06,920/- bearing No. CCL 136021 dated 23.5.1996 and handed over to the petitioner after putting his signatures in presence of the petitioner. The said cheque was presented for clearing on 23.5.1996 in the Bank of India, Rambagh Branch Indore. The cheque was returned unpaid by the Bank with a memo stating that "Signature does not tally". 3. A demand notice for payment of the amount was served on the respondent. Since the respondent after receipt of notice also did not pay the amount, petitioner had filed a complaint under S. 138 of the Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore which was dismissed vide order dated 23.4.2003. This order of dismissal was challenged by filing criminal revision No. 311 of 03 unsuccessfully which brings the petitioner before this Court. 4. The question involved in this petition is whether learned Magistrate and Sessions Judge as well committed any illegality or error in dismissing the complaint as well as the revision? 5. Admittedly, the cheque which was presented by petitioner in the Bank was returned unpaid on the ground that a "signature does not tally". Therefore in such a situation whether a complaint filed under S. 138 of the Act is maintainable is to be answered in this petition. 6. The said question has been answered by the apex Court reported in the matter of Vinod Tanna and another v. Zaher Siddiqui and others [2003 (1) MPLJ 373]. Therefore in such a situation whether a complaint filed under S. 138 of the Act is maintainable is to be answered in this petition. 6. The said question has been answered by the apex Court reported in the matter of Vinod Tanna and another v. Zaher Siddiqui and others [2003 (1) MPLJ 373]. In the referred matter also the cheque was dishonoured by the Bank on the ground that signature was incomplete. It has been held by the apex Court that a plain reading of section 138 of the Act makes it crystal clear that unless the conditions precedent mentioned therein are satisfied, the said penal provision cannot be attracted. After giving this finding proceedings of criminal case were quashed by the apex Court, reversing the judgment of the High Court. 7. Following the ratio laid down by apex Court in the above referred matter, this petition also has no merit and substance and liable to be dismissed. 8. It is accordingly dismissed.