ORDER : YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J. 1. The instant criminal petition has been preferred under Section 482 CRPC with a prayer for setting aside and quashing of complaint Case C.R. Case No. 3707/2018 filed under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1980,pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati in respect of the present petitioner who has been arrayed as opposite party No. 2 erroneously in the C.R. Case. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent/complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant/respondent erroneously implicated the petitioner herein as the sole proprietor of the opposite No. 1 firm whereas the petitioner is merely a representative/attorney holder of the said firm with certain capacities as assigned to him by the sole proprietor i.e., Mr. Tomo Basar. 3. It is further submitted that by filing an application for amendment of the complaint petition C.R. Case No. 3707/2018, the complainant themselves admitted that it was the sole proprietor Mr. Tomo Basar who was the drawer and signatory of the cheque which was dishonored and not the petitioner but that he was left out of the said complaint proceedings due to inadvertence on the part of the complainant while filing the complaint case being C.R. No. 3707/2018. 4. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the instant C.R. Case No. 3707/2018 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M) Guwahati may be set aside in so far as the present petitioner is concerned. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. B. Baruah has submitted on the basis of his affidavit-in-opposition filed in the present petition. In the affidavit-in- opposition a copy of the dealership agreement signed between the Amrit Cement Ltd. and M/S Eastern Trading Agency is enclosed wherein the petitioner has signed and represented himself as the proprietor of the M/S Eastern Trading Agency. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that unless evidence is adduced regarding the proprietorship of the company, it cannot be said that the present petitioner is not responsible and that he is not the proprietor of the company. He has therefore prayed that this petition may be dismissed. 6. This Court has duly considered the submissions of the parties and perused the pleadings. He has therefore prayed that this petition may be dismissed. 6. This Court has duly considered the submissions of the parties and perused the pleadings. This Court has also perused the application filed by the complainant/respondents praying for amendment of the cause title before the learned Trial Court Case No. 3707/2018. In the said application the complainant/respondent has specifically stated that while filing the complaint petition they have inadvertently left out the name of the owner/proprietor Mr. Tomo Basar representing the proprietorship firm which is required to be incorporated by way of amendment in the name of address column of OP No. 1 and in paragraph 2 of the complaint petition in C.R. Case No. 3707/2018 wherein the name of OP No. 2 mentioned in the cause title should be correctly read as “Attorney Holder” in place of sole proprietor. The complainant stated that the same was an omission on his part and therefore, it had been prayed that the amendment be allowed. It is also stated in the application that the drawer of the cheque bearing No. 911336 dated 30.04.2018 State Bank of India is Shri. Tomo Basar containing the sign and seal of the proprietor M/S Eastern Trading Agency and further that the said drawer of the aforesaid cheque is the proprietor himself, who is one and the same person. However, the said name had been inadvertently left out without rectification in the name and address column of the opposite party No. 1 and in paragraph 2 of the complaint petition and hence, the amendment was prayed for. 7. It is therefore clear that it is the respondent/complainant himself who has admitted in the application for amendment that the drawer of the cheque bearing No. 911336 dated 30.04.2018 of the State Bank of India is Shri. Tomo Basar. And that the said drawer of the aforesaid cheque is the proprietor himself. 8. It goes without saying that to be liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the signature and the drawer of the cheque has to be the accused person. And that the said drawer of the aforesaid cheque is the proprietor himself. 8. It goes without saying that to be liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the signature and the drawer of the cheque has to be the accused person. However, in the present case it is seen that the petitioner is not the drawer of the cheque bearing No. 911336 dated 30.04.2018 and accordingly, this Court is of the view that the proceedings against the present petition cannot continue and therefore the C.R. Case No. 3707/2018 pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati is quashed and set aside as far as the present petitioner is concerned. The proceedings against the other opposite parties shall continue. Petition stands allowed and disposed of.