JUDGMENT K. C. Puri, J.:-The above mentioned seven petitions arise out of same facts and law. As such, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, facts are being extracted from Criminal Misc.No.12002-M of 2008. 2. The petitioner seeks setting aside of impugned order dated 9.10.2007, Annexure P-3 whereby application for exemption from personal appearance of petitioner was declined and nonbailable warrant against him was issued. He also seeks setting aside of order dated 28.4.2009, Annexure P-4, whereby a primafacie case for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the Act) was found against the petitioner and others and they were ordered to be summoned. 3. The respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the petitioner and two others on the averments that it is a private limited concern and is carrying on the business of hatchery etc. at village Atna, Police Station Safidon, District Jind. The accused used to purchase broiler birds from the complainant on credit. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were actively engaged in the conduct and affairs of the business and were carrying on the business under the name and style of M/s. Shahzad Company, accused No.3. 4. Towards part payment of the boiler birds purchased by the accused on credit, accused No.2 issued two cheques, one bearing No.081222 dated 26.6.2007 for Rs.1,58,565 and the other bearing No.081225 dated 27.6.2007 for Rs.86,955 both, drawn on Janta Co-operative Bank Limited, Delhi. 5. The complainant presented both the aforesaid cheques in HDFC Bank Limited, Panipat but the same were dishonoured and HDFC Bank has informed the complainant that the amount of both the cheques could not be paid due to the reason “Account closed and refer to drawer”, vide different memos dated 11.8.2007 of Janta Co-operative Bank Limited, Delhi and consequently, the aforesaid cheques have been returned to the complainant. The accused have knowingly and deliberately caused dishonouring of the cheques and, thus, violated the provisions of Section 138 of the Act. 6. The complainant served legal notices in respect of both the cheques as per Section 138 of the Act, calling upon the accused to make payment of the cheques within 15 days of the receipt of the notices. As the accused did not make the payment within the statutory period of receipt of notices, the complainant filed the complaint, as noticed earlier. 7. As the accused did not make the payment within the statutory period of receipt of notices, the complainant filed the complaint, as noticed earlier. 7. The complainant filed detailed reply to the quashing petition which will be dealt with in the later part of the judgment. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that proceedings under Section 138 of the Act against the petitioner are liable to be quashed as he is not the signatory of the cheques in question. It is further submitted that firm M/s.Shahzad and Company is a proprietorship firm and Shahzad is the sole partner. So, no liability in respect of cheques in question can be fastened upon the petitioner. To support his contention, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following authorities:- 1.Smt. Bandeep Kaur Versus S.Avneet Singh, [2008(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 511] : 2008 (2) Civil Court Cases 134. 2.Dr.Anand Kumar Goyal Versus State of Haryana and another, 2009(1) Civil Court Cases 42. 3.Atul Jain Versus Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar and another, Acq. D.C.C. 116. 4. Devi Versus Haridas, 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 649 (Kerala). 5. G. Surya Prabhavathi Vs. Nekkanti Subhrahmanyeswara Rao, 1998(2) Civil Court Cases 617 (A.P). 9. In reply to the above noted submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the complainant who is the petitioner in the complaint has clearly mentioned that the goods have been purchased by all the accused. Notice under 138 of the Act was issued to the petitioner but he has not filed any reply taking the objection that he was not a partner of the firm. It is yet to be determined, during the course of trial, whether M/s.Shahzad and Company is the proprietorship firm or not and the amount is payable by the petitioner along with other accused. The accused have placed on the file various transactions between the complainant and the petitioner. So, the present petition is clearly an abuse of the process of the Court. The accused/petitioner is hoodwinking with the trial Court and is not appearing. Therefore, he is not entitled for invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. I have carefully considered the said submission and have gone through the record of the case. 11. The petitioner wants quashing of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act by raising disputed questions of fact. The accused/petitioner is hoodwinking with the trial Court and is not appearing. Therefore, he is not entitled for invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. I have carefully considered the said submission and have gone through the record of the case. 11. The petitioner wants quashing of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act by raising disputed questions of fact. I am of the considered view that the disputed questions of facts cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court while dealing with the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in authority in case State of Punjab & Ors. v. Inder Mohan Chopra & Ors., 2009(3) Judgments Today 593 has held as under:- “The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. It has been further held in the said authority as under:- “It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint/F.I.R has to be read as a whole. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint/F.I.R has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant or disclosed in the F.I.R that the ingredients of the offence or offfences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint/F.I.R is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court.” 13. So far as authority in case Smt.Bandeep Kaur (supra) is concerned, it has been held that account could be opened by anyone. Non signatory of the cheque is not liable for the offence committed u/s 138 of N.I. Act. Under S.138 of the Act, the person who is drawer of the cheque can only be prosecuted and not the other except the contingencies mentioned u/s 141 of the Act. In the facts of the present case, the complainant has pleaded that accused i.e. petitioner and Shahzad are actively engaged in the conduct and affair of the business in M/s. Shahzad & Company i.e. accused No.3. The said assertion can be only be adjudicated upon, during the course of trial and the complaint cannot be quashed against the petitioner without leading evidence. 14. Authority in case Dr.Anand Kumar Goyal, (supra) deals with the sleeping part of the firm. 15. Authority in case Atul Jain (supra) is remotely connected with the facts of the case. In that case, it has been held that a son cannot be held liable in respect of a cheque issued by the father. 16. Authority in case Devi (supra) is also distinguishable as in that case, cheque was issued by one of the Joint Account Holders to discharge his liability. 17. So far as authority in case G. Surya Prabhavathi (supra) is concerned, in that case, it has been held that wife cannot be held criminally liable under Section 138 of the Act in respect of cheque issued by her husband. There is no dispute with that proposition of law, laid down in the said authority. In view of the above discussion, no ground for interference is made out. Consequently, all the above-said seven petitions stand dismissed. ----------------