Specific averments are essential to fasten vicarious liability on a partner in cheque dishonour proceedings.

Vicarious liability for a partner under the Negotiable Instruments Act requires clear and specific complaint averments that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the firm's business, or that the offence was committed with her consent, connivance, or neglect. Where the complaint attributes no specific role and omits these foundational allegations, liability cannot be inferred. The proceedings against the partner were therefore not sustainable and were liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint contained the necessary averments to fasten vicarious liability on a partner of a firm for an offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act and whether the criminal proceedings against her were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: For an under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a partner can be proceeded against only if the complaint specifically states that she was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm, or that the offence was committed with her consent, connivance, or neglect. The complaint did not attribute any specific role to the appellant, nor did it allege that she was in charge of the business or responsible for its conduct. In the absence of such foundational averments, vicarious liability could not be inferred, and the High Court's summary approach was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The proceedings against the appellant could not be sustained and were liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises only from clear and specific allegations that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm, or that the offence occurred with the accused's consent, connivance, or neglect.

---