Director liability in cheque dishonour cases: broad averments of active involvement can be enough to let prosecution continue.

A company director cannot seek quashing of a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution under Section 482 CrPC merely because the complaint does not reproduce the exact words of Section 141. Broad averments that the director and others approached the complainant, represented the company, sought time for repayment, and were actively involved in the company's affairs were held sufficient at the threshold. The Court emphasised that meticulous scrutiny is not undertaken at the quashing stage; whether the statutory requirements are ultimately proved is a matter for trial. The petition for quashing therefore failed and the criminal case was allowed to proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against a company director could be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for want of specific averments that he was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business.

Analysis: Liability of a director for an offence by a company does not arise merely from the fact of directorship, but the complaint need not reproduce the exact wording of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaint contained allegations that the petitioner and other accused approached the complainant for a loan, represented the company, sought time for repayment, and were actively involved in the company's affairs. At the stage of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court does not undertake meticulous scrutiny of the complaint as if conducting a trial. Broad allegations showing statutory compliance are sufficient to allow the prosecution to proceed, while the factual question whether the requirements of Section 141 are ultimately proved must be decided at trial.

Conclusion: The complaint disclosed sufficient allegations of the petitioner's active involvement and responsibility in the company's affairs, so the proceedings were not liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The petition for quashing failed, and the criminal case was permitted to continue to trial.

Ratio Decidendi: For prosecution of a company director under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complaint need not contain a verbatim recital of statutory language if it otherwise contains broad averments showing active involvement and responsibility in the company's business; such sufficiency is ordinarily to be tested at trial, not in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---