ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners. 2. I do not find any ground to admit the petition. 3. Petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. The case of the complainant before the trial Court is that in respect of supply of waterproofing and allied materials, petitioners issued the subject cheques which came to be dishonoured on account of stop payment and for difference in signatures. 5. The contention of the petitioners is that the subject cheques were signed by one Sri.C.B.Jain who is also vicariously liable for the alleged offence and therefore, without arraying the said person as coaccused, the proceedings are not tenable under law, in view Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 6. The tenability of the petition should be considered based on the averments made in the complaint and not on the defense set up by the accused. According to the complainant, the alleged offence was committed by the company namely, accused No.1. The cheques in question were issued by the company in respect of the transactions carried on by it with the complainant. The cheques, according to the complainant, were signed by its authorized signatories namely, accused No.2 and one Sri.C.B.Jain. If for any reason the complainant does not intend to proceed against the cosignatory, same does not vitiate the proceedings. 7. A perusal of the cheques discloses that the same were signed by petitioner No.2 in his capacity as Director of the company and one Sri.C.B.Jain. According to the petitioners, the said Sri.C.B.Jain ceased to be the Director of accused No.1company much before presentation of the cheques. As such, the complainant has rightly not chosen to proceed against the aforesaid person. The omission to proceed against one of the cosignatories does not render the prosecution illegal or violative of Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. As such, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter. For the above reasons, petition is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2020 is also dismissed.