ORDER V. Jagannathan, J : The petitioner who is accused No.2 and being the mother of accused No.1 is before this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings against her which is pending in C.C,No.30822/09 on the file of the 13th Addl. CMM, Bangalore, and issuance of summons to the petitioner has given raise to this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts which have led to the summons being issued to the petitioner in respect of an offence punishable under Section 138 of N I. Act, 1881, are that, the respondent-complainant approached the Trial Court in a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that the Complainant being the tenant in the Premises owned by the petitioner vacated the premises and sought for refund of the deposit amount. The petitioner's son who is accused no.1 issued two cheques to the respondent for a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- each and the said cheques on being presented by the complainant were returned with an endorsement 'insufficient funds'. The complainant issued a notice to both the accused and sought for payment of Rs. 5,20,000/- and though said notice was returned with an endorsement 'not claimed', thereafter, the complainant resorted to filing of the private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 3. Learned Magistrate of the Trial Court recorded the sworn statement of the representative of the complainant's company and based on the said sworn statement and also on perusal of the complaint, the Court directed issuance of summons to both the accused. 4. The petitioner who is accused No.2 contends in this petition that the cheques in question were issued by her son and not by the petitioner and therefore, by virtue of provisions contained in Section 138 of N.I. Act, it is only the 1st accused who had issued the cheques can be prosecuted and not this petitioner. 5. 4. The petitioner who is accused No.2 contends in this petition that the cheques in question were issued by her son and not by the petitioner and therefore, by virtue of provisions contained in Section 138 of N.I. Act, it is only the 1st accused who had issued the cheques can be prosecuted and not this petitioner. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the above submission, placed reliance on the Apex Court decision reported in 2010 AIR sew 4616 to contend that the proceedings in respect of an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act is tenable only against the drawer of the cheque and as it is not in dispute that two cheques were issued by accused No.1 and not by the petitioner, the Trial Court could not have issued summouns to the petitioner: 6. On the other hand, submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant is that while it is an admitted fact that two cheques in question were issued by accused No.1 and not by the petitioner I yet in order to establish the legal relationship of the landlord and the tenant, it was necessary on the part of the complainant to make the petitioner also as 'one of the accused, because the cheques in question were issued by the 1st accused only as per the directions of the petitioner. Further more, if the petitioner is not made as a party, then that itself may come in the way of the complainant succeeding before the Trial Court. Under these circumstances the petition therefore be dismissed. 7. Having thus heard both sides, the only point for consideration is as, tot whether the Trial Court was justified in issuing summons to the petitioner in respect of an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act when the petitioner was not the drawer of the two cheques. 8. Before referring to the position in law as has been laid down by the Apex Court, it is necessary to extract the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I.Act and the said provision is as follows:- 138. 8. Before referring to the position in law as has been laid down by the Apex Court, it is necessary to extract the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I.Act and the said provision is as follows:- 138. Dishonour of cheque far insufficiency; etc., of funds in the account.-Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liabllity, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other" provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for [a term which may be extended to two years], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both; Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless - (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity I whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheques' as the case may be, makes a demand for and for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, (within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or' as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. 9. 9. It is clear from the aforesaid provisions of law that it is only a person who has drawn the cheques, who is deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act, if the cheque drawn by the said person is returned from the bank with an endorsement 'insufficient funds', it is not possible to read from the contents of the aforesaid Section that even a person who is not the drawer of the cheque also can be made liable in respect of an offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. This position being clear from the bare perusal of the aforesaid provision of law, and it is also necessary to refer to the law laid down by the Apex Court in this regard. 10. In the case of P.J. Agro Tech Ltd. & others Vs. Water Base Ltd. 2010 AIR SCW 4616), the Apex Court while considering the ease where facts, it was round that the cheque in question which has been ;honored was issued by respondent No.11 for discharging the dues of Appellant No. 1's company and its Directors to the 1st respondent. many, it is in the context of the said facts, the Apex Court after referring Section 138 of N.I. Act, laid down the following preposition of Jaw; "An action in respect of a criminal or a quasi-criminal provision has to be strictly construed in keeping with the provisions alleged to have been violated. The proceedings in such matters are in personam and cannot be used to foist an offence on some other person, who under the statute was not liable for the commission of such offence" . 11. Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid interpretation of Section 138 of L Act by the Apex Court that the proceedings so far as the said Section concerned are proceed ins in personam and as the consequence of this interpretation of the Apex Court it also can be said that there can be no question of extending the principle of vicarious liability so far as the criminal proceedings are concerned, and this is also settled position in law as has m laid down by the Apex Court. 12. 12. For the aforementioned reasons, the Trial Court in the instant case was not justified in issuing summons to the petitioner in respect of an offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act when the petitioner was not the drawer of the cheques in question. The apprehension of the respondent that he will not be able to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt is concerned, as the entire proceedings under Section 138 of N.I.Act rests on the issuance of cheques by the drawer to the complainant and the said. cheques getting dishonoured for various reasons, ,the said apprehension of the petitioner therefore will have to be held as ill-founded and for the very same reasons not making the petitioner as a party in the criminal proceedings in respect of an offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act also' cannot be seen as infirmity :in the case of the complainant particularly having regard to the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court that in order to attract an offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act, the person concerned will be the drawer of the cheque and none else. 13. Accordingly the petition is allowed and .issuance of summons to the petitioner herein by the Trial Court is set aside and the proceedings shall go on in respect of accused No.1 in accordance with law. As it is submitted at the bar that the Courts dealing with the cases under the N.I. Act issue summons not only to the drawer of the cheque, but even to others, a copy of this order shall be sent to all the Courts for information. The Registry to take necessary steps in this regard to communicate to all the lower Courts.