Director liability in cheque dishonour cases requires proper averments; individual notice to each director is not always necessary.

In cheque dishonour prosecutions, averments that the company's directors were in charge of and responsible for its business, and that the cheque was issued with their consent and connivance, were treated as sufficient at the summoning stage. The objection that each director had not been individually served with notice was rejected because notice to the company and concerned persons was not defeated on that basis. The court also stressed that inherent jurisdiction should be used sparingly and not to stifle a legitimate prosecution or decide disputed facts before evidence is led. On those facts, the challenge to the summoning order failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning order in a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act deserved to be quashed under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction on the grounds that the director's role was not specifically averred and that individual notice was not served on him.

Analysis: The complaint contained averments that the accused company and its directors were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of its business, and that the cheque was issued with their consent and connivance. Those allegations were treated as sufficient at the summoning stage under the governing law on director liability in cheque dishonour cases. The objection based on absence of individual notice was rejected in light of the principle that notice to the company and the persons concerned is not defeated merely because each director is not separately noticed. The Court also emphasized that inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be exercised sparingly and should not be used to stifle a legitimate prosecution or to assess disputed facts before evidence is led.

Conclusion: The petition for quashing was not maintainable on the facts and the challenge to the summoning order failed.

---