ORDER : 1. Present criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC") has been preferred by the applicant - original accused No.5 to quash and set aside the impugned criminal complaint being Criminal Case No.6186/2010 pending in the Court of learned 7th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar, which is now reported to have been transferred to the Special Court (N.I.), Bhavnagar, which has been filed by respondent No.2 herein against the applicant and others for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "N.I. Act"). 2. A criminal case has been instituted against the applicant - original accused No.5 and others by respondent No.2 herein in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Neotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of the cheque dated 25.02.2009 which was admittedly issued and signed by the original accused No.1 - husband of the applicant. In the said complaint, the learned Magistrate has issued the process against all accused persons inclusive of the applicant for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Neotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the applicant - original accused No.5 has preferred the present criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the CrPC. 3. Shri Bhavesh Trivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has vehemently submitted that as such the applicant is neither signatory to the cheque nor the cheque in question has been issued from the bank account maintained by the applicant. It is further submitted that in fact the applicant - original accused No.5 has nothing to do with the partnership firm who has issued the cheque in question. It is further submitted that even the applicant is not the partner of the said partnership firm - original accused No.1. It is submitted that as such nothing has been mentioned in the complaint as to how the applicant is connected with the partnership firm and how the applicant has committed any offence. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Mahendrakumar Tulsibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and Anr. It is submitted that as such nothing has been mentioned in the complaint as to how the applicant is connected with the partnership firm and how the applicant has committed any offence. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Mahendrakumar Tulsibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in 2008(1) GLH 196 , it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned complaint qua original accused No.5 by submitting that to continue with the criminal proceedings against the applicant is nothing but abuse of process of law and Court. It is submitted that despite there are no specific averments and/or allegations against the applicant in the complaint and despite the reply to the statutory notice, the learned Magistrate has mechanically issued the process against the applicant also, which deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Though served, nobody appears on behalf of respondent No.2. On earlier occasion also, it was found that though respondent No.2 was served, respondent No.2 had neither remain present personally nor through his advocate and therefore, to give one another chance the matter was adjourned and fresh Notice was issued upon respondent No.2. Still, nobody has remain present on behalf of respondent No.2. Under the circumstances, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has no other alternative but to proceed further with the hearing of the present application ex-parte. 5. Shri Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has requested to pass appropriate order considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Heard Shri Trivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant and considered the necessary averments and allegations in the impugned complaint/criminal case as well as the reply to the statutory notice by the applicant. From the impugned complaint/criminal case, it appears that admittedly the cheque in question has been signed by one Nareshbhai Ramchand Keshwani (husband of the applicant) as partner of one Manmohan Electronics. There are no allegations and averments in the complaint that applicant - original accused No.5 is the partner of said partnership firm and/or that the applicant was in day-to-day affairs and management of the partnership firm. There are no allegations and averments in the complaint that applicant - original accused No.5 is the partner of said partnership firm and/or that the applicant was in day-to-day affairs and management of the partnership firm. In fact in the reply to the statutory notice, the applicant has specifically mentioned that applicant is neither signatory to the cheque nor the applicant has anything to do with the cheque issued by the partnership firm and even she is not the partner of the partnership firm. Even considering the averments in the complaint, there are no specific allegations and/or averments against the applicant at all and how the applicant is related to the partnership firm. Under the circumstances, when the applicant is neither the signatory to the cheque nor the cheque in question has been drawn from the bank account maintained by the applicant and the applicant is not even the partner of the partnership firm who has issued the cheque and in absence of any other averments as required under Section 141 of the Neotiable Instruments Act, the learned Magistrate has materially erred in issuing the process against the applicant. To continue the criminal proceedings against the applicant is nothing but abuse of process of law and Court. Hence, it appears to this Court that this is a fit case to exercise powers under Section 482 of the CrPC and to quash and set aside the impugned complaint/criminal case so far as present applicant is concerned. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and considering the decision of this Court in the case of Mahendrakumar Tulsibhai Patel (Supra), the impugned complaint/Criminal Case No.6186/2010, which is now reported to be pending before the Special Court (N.I.), Bhavnagar is hereby quashed and set aside so far as applicant - original accused No.5 is concerned. Consequently, the process issued by the learned Magistrate against the applicant in the aforesaid criminal case for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Neotiable Instruments Act qua the applicant herein - original accused No.5 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, the same shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the original complainant against rest of the accused persons and the present application is allowed only qua the applicant - original accused No.5. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Application allowed.