Judgment :- 1. Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has approached this Court, seeking a direction to call for the records in C.C.No.299 of 2007 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II at Coimbatore and to quash the same as against the petitioner, who is the third accused in the said case. 2. This petitioner along with other three accused has been facing a charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the case in C.C.No.299 of 2007, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore. 3. The respondent herein has filed a complaint against the accused and three others under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that on 05.07.2006, the second accused by way of purchase order on behalf of the first accused and on behalf of the accused 3 and 4 had purchased 30 bags of 80's combed cotton yarn in cones at Rs.205/- per kilogram and enclosed a cheque bearing No.610362, dated 19.07.2006 for Rs.3,20,272/-. When the cheque was presented for encashment, it was bounced back with an endorsement "funds insufficient". Even inspite of a statutory notice, the cheque amount was not paid back. Therefore, the respondent had filed a complaint as against the accused 1 to 4. It is alleged that the first accused is a firm and the accused 2 to 4 are the partners and therefore they are jointly and severally liable to pay the cheque amount. 4. The petitioner herein is the third accused in the above said case and the second accused is her husband. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not at all a partner in the first accused firm and hence she could not be held liable to pay the cheque amount along with the other accused persons. He has also submitted that when she is in noway connected with the alleged transaction, she has been unnecessarily implicated in this complaint and that the case in C.C.No.229 of 2007 as against this petitioner being the third accused has to be quashed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has also produced a copy of the partnership deed to show that the petitioner is not a partner in the first accused firm. 7. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has also produced a copy of the partnership deed to show that the petitioner is not a partner in the first accused firm. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant has also conceded that the petitioner/third accused is not at all a partner and that the case in respect of the petitioner/third accused might be quashed and the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore might be directed to dispose the case in respect of the other accused within a steel framed time. 8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides and also perused the materials available on record, including the averments of the complaint as well as the petition and is of view that the petitioner is not at all a partner in the first accused firm and hence the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of the petitioner being third accused is liable to be quashed. 9. In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings in respect of the petitioner/third accused in C.C.No.299 of 2007 is quashed. Further, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore is directed to dispose the case in C.C.No.299 of 2007 in respect of the other accused, within a stipulated period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, without further loss of time. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.