Prima facie averments against company officers can sustain summons; quashing is improper at the complaint stage.

A complaint against company officers can proceed where it specifically avers that the chairman, managing director and directors were in charge of, and responsible for, the company's business at the time of the offence. At the quashing stage under Section 482 CrPC, the court considers only the allegations in the complaint, not the truth or sufficiency of the evidence, which is a matter for trial. On reading the complaint as a whole, clear and explicit averments were held sufficient to justify summoning the accused and to support a prima facie case for trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint contained sufficient averments to make out a prima facie case against the accused officers and directors, and whether the High Court was justified in quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The complaint specifically stated the respective positions of the chairman, managing director and directors and asserted that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the time of the offence. For quashing proceedings, only the allegations in the complaint are relevant at that stage, and the truth or sufficiency of evidence is a matter for trial. On a reading of the complaint as a whole, the averments were clear and explicit and were enough to justify summoning the accused.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings, and the complaint disclosed a prima facie case for trial against the accused.

---