Court quashes cognizance order against company director in section 138 case.

The court quashed the order of cognizance against the petitioner, a director of a company, in a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court found that the complaint lacked specific averments under section 141 to implicate the petitioner for vicarious liability. Emphasizing the importance of adhering to the provisions of section 141, the court highlighted the need for clear allegations against directors for their prosecution under the Act. The court directed the expeditious disposal of the case pending since 2008 within four months, vacating any interim orders.

---

---

Issues:
Quashing of order of cognisance under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 based on section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought quashing of the order of cognisance dated March 17, 2008, passed in a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner, a director of a company, was implicated solely based on her directorship. Other directors had similar petitions quashed due to lack of specific averments under section 141 of the Act, as observed in a previous judgment.

2. The respondent relied on a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that directors can be held liable if they were in charge of the company's affairs when the offense occurred. However, the petitioner's counsel cited a recent Supreme Court judgment stressing the need for specific averments against directors to establish liability under section 141 of the Act.

3. The complaint alleged that the petitioner, along with other directors, was responsible for the company's business and the issuance of a dishonored cheque. However, the court found that the complaint did not clearly implicate the petitioner for connivance or neglect, as required by section 141.

4. Considering the complaint and section 141, the court concluded that the necessary averments to implicate the petitioner were lacking. Previous judgments highlighted the strict compliance required under section 141 and the need for specific allegations against directors for their prosecution under the Act.

5. The court quashed the order of cognisance against the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the provisions of section 141 in cases involving vicarious liability of directors under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

6. The court directed the expeditious disposal of the case pending since 2008, urging the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate to resolve the matter within four months from the date of the order, vacating any interim orders in place.

---