Judgment 1. Since the issue involved in all the above Criminal Original Petitions is one and the same, all the above Criminal Original Petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The Petitioners/third and fourth accused in C.C.Nos.12477, 12476 of 2003 and C.C.Nos.8261, 9182, 5934 of 2004 respectively on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and who are facing trial for an alleged offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act have filed the above Criminal Original Petitions seeking to quash all further proceedings pending against them. 3. It is seen that in respect of amounts due towards purchase of goods, the second accused had issued 7 post dated cheques in favour of M/s. Mohsin Leathers for payment of Rs.14 lakhs and the same were endorsed in favour of the complainant. It is alleged in the Complaint that subsequently the fourth accused had made arrangements to repay the dishonour cheques and finally the cheques issued in favour of the complainant bearing Nos.734057 for Rs.1,50,000/-, 734058 for Rs.1,50,000, 734061 for Rs.2,00,000/-, 734062 for Rs.2,00,000/-, 734060 for Rs.2,00,000/- and 734059 for Rs.2,00,000/- respectively were returned dishonoured when they were presented for payment. After satisfying the statutory requirements, the respondent herein filed Complaints and the same have been taken on file. 4. Heard both sides. 5. Mr. Rajasekaran, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the first accused-Firm purchased the goods from A.3-Firm and A.4 is a Partner of the Firm and to discharge the said liability on behalf of the first accused-Firm, A.2 issued the cheques in question in favour of the first Petitioner/A.3 herein; A.3 purchased the goods from the complainant on so many times on credit basis and at the request mad by the complainant to clear the dues, the Petitioners herein, who are A.3 and A.4 made an endorsement upon the cheques in question in favour of the Complainant and in the capacity of holder in due course, the complainant had presented the cheques, but the same were returned, dishonoured with an endorsement ‘not arranged for’. 6. After satisfying the statutory requirements, the Complaints have been filed not only against the drawer of the cheques in question but also against the Petitioners herein. 6. After satisfying the statutory requirements, the Complaints have been filed not only against the drawer of the cheques in question but also against the Petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that since the Petitioners, who are endorsees of the cheques cannot be construed as drawers of the cheques, which have been dishonoured, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the Petitioners is bad in law. 7. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel for the Petitioners relied upon a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in S. Badhusha Bibi v. Anandkumar, 1991 (2) MWN (Crl.) 237 (Mad.). In the said decision, it is laid down as under: “A reading of the Section makes it clear that only the drawer of the cheque can alone by proceeded with for offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, provided the other requirements are satisfied. The 2nd accused, who is the Petitioner herein is not the drawer of the cheque. Hence, she cannot be proceeded with. The case as against her is necessarily to be quashed.” 8. On the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent was heard. The learned counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner squarely applies to the facts of this case. 9. I have considered the aforesaid submissions made on either side. 10. It is settled law that only the drawer of the cheque can be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act but not the endorse. Here, in these cases, admittedly the Petitioners herein are not drawers of the cheques, which were dishonoured, but they are only the endorsees of the cheques in question. Therefore, they cannot be prosecuted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioners squarely applies to the facts of this case. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the above Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and all further proceedings in C.C. Nos.12477, 12476 of 2003 and C.C. Nos.8261, 9182, 5934 of 2004 respectively on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai as against the Petitioners herein are quashed. 12. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the above Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and all further proceedings in C.C. Nos.12477, 12476 of 2003 and C.C. Nos.8261, 9182, 5934 of 2004 respectively on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai as against the Petitioners herein are quashed. 12. Since C.C. Nos.12477, 12476 of 2003 and C.C. Nos.8261, 9182, 5934 of 2004 respectively are pending on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is hereby directed to dispose of the same within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.