Cheque Dishonour Prosecution: basic averment supports process, but unimpeachable material can still justify quashing in clear cases

A complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act need only contain the basic averment that a director was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time; that is enough to issue process, but it does not bar quashing in every case. The High Court may examine unimpeachable material, such as clear evidence of resignation or non-involvement, if it shows continuation of prosecution would be an abuse of process. However, proceedings should not be quashed merely because the complaint lacks a detailed narrative of each director's role. On the facts stated, quashing was not justified for the other directors, but was sustained for one elderly director.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against non-signatory directors can be quashed merely because it contains only the basic averment that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, and whether the High Court may nevertheless quash such proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the basis of unimpeachable material showing that a particular director was not concerned with the transaction.

Analysis: A complaint under Section 141 must contain the basic averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. That averment enables process to be issued, but it does not create an absolute bar against quashing. The High Court, while exercising inherent powers, is not confined to the complaint alone in every case and may examine incontrovertible material or wholly acceptable circumstances, such as a prior resignation or other clear facts, if they show that prosecuting the director would be an abuse of process. At the same time, a complaint cannot be quashed merely because it does not narrate the precise role played by each director in detail; absent reliable material showing that the director could not have been involved, the matter should ordinarily proceed to trial. On the facts, no unimpeachable material was produced against the other directors, but the case of one elderly director justified quashing.

Conclusion: The High Court's blanket quashing was unsustainable in respect of the other directors, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration; the quashing was sustained only for the elderly director.

---