Quashing of criminal process against a formal director requires specific allegations and prima facie material linking him to the offence.

Criminal proceedings against a director described as a formal director were held unsustainable where the complaint contained no specific allegations of his direct or indirect involvement and disclosed no prima facie ingredients of the offence. Mere designation as a director, without foundational averments connecting him to the alleged wrongdoing, was insufficient to justify continuation of the complaint and process. The inherent powers of the court could therefore be invoked to quash the proceedings because the pleadings failed to make out even a prima facie case against him.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings could be quashed against a director who was described as a formal director, when the complaint contained no specific allegations and did not disclose prima facie ingredients of the offence against him.

Analysis: The petition under the inherent powers of the Court sought quashing of the complaint and process issued against the petitioner. The complaint did not contain any specific allegation showing the petitioner's direct or indirect role in the alleged offence, and no prima facie material was disclosed to connect him with the accusations. Mere inclusion as a director, without foundational averments or ingredients of the offence, was held insufficient to justify continuation of the proceedings against him.

Conclusion: The proceedings against the petitioner were liable to be quashed because the complaint failed to make out any specific or prima facie case against him.

Ratio Decidendi: Criminal process against a director cannot be sustained in the absence of specific allegations and prima facie ingredients showing his involvement in the offence.

---