Vicarious liability in cheque dishonour cases turns on specific pleadings of responsibility; disputed resignation claims go to trial.

Specific averments that accused directors or authorised signatories were in charge of, and responsible for, the company's day-to-day business are sufficient at the summoning stage to attract vicarious liability in cheque dishonour prosecutions. Detailed evidence is not required in the complaint if the necessary factual foundation is pleaded. Disputed claims of resignation and other defence material raise questions of fact that cannot ordinarily be decided in proceedings under inherent jurisdiction for quashing, and such defences may be pursued at trial. The complaints and summoning orders were therefore allowed to stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaints contained sufficient averments to show that the petitioners were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company so as to attract vicarious liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act. (ii) Whether the petitioners' claim of resignation and other disputed factual assertions warranted quashing of the complaints and summoning orders in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the complaints contained sufficient averments to show that the petitioners were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company so as to attract vicarious liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: The complaints specifically averred that the accused directors and authorised signatories were responsible for the day-to-day conduct and affairs of the company. Such averments were sufficient at the threshold to attract the statutory rule of vicarious liability for offences relating to dishonour of cheques. The complaint need not set out detailed evidence at the stage of summoning, and a person may be proceeded against where the necessary factual foundation is pleaded.

Conclusion: The complaints disclosed sufficient averments to proceed against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners' claim of resignation and other disputed factual assertions warranted quashing of the complaints and summoning orders in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Analysis: The alleged resignations were disputed and their genuineness, admissibility and effect required evidence. The petitions raised disputed questions of fact that could not be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court found no illegality or infirmity in the summoning orders and held that the petitioners could raise their defence at trial.

Conclusion: The petitions did not merit quashing at the threshold.

Final Conclusion: The complaints and summoning orders were allowed to stand, and the petitioners were left to pursue their defences before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for dishonour of cheques, specific averments that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business are sufficient at the summoning stage, and disputed claims of resignation or other defence material ordinarily cannot be adjudicated in proceedings for quashing.

---