Director liability in cheque dishonour cases depends on specific averments of control and responsibility, not mere designation.

A director may be proceeded against under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act only where the complaint specifically alleges that the person was in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time. Mere designation as a director is insufficient, but averments of day-to-day control, participation in the transaction, and responsibility for company affairs can support issuance of process. At the Section 482 CrPC stage, the court should not conduct a mini-trial or weigh disputed defences; interference is warranted only on unimpeachable material. On the pleaded facts, the complaint disclosed sufficient allegations and the summoning order was not interfered with.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-signatory directors could be proceeded against under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the basis of the complaint averments, and whether the complaint and summoning order were liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: For fastening liability on directors of a company in a prosecution under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complaint must contain specific averments that the accused were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. Mere designation as a director is not enough, but where the complaint attributes day-to-day control, participation in the transaction, and responsibility for the company's affairs, the Magistrate can issue process. At the quashing stage, the Court is not to conduct a mini trial or weigh defences that require evidence, and only unimpeachable material can justify interference in an exceptional case.

Conclusion: The complaint disclosed sufficient allegations against the petitioners, including their role in the company's affairs and the transaction, and the summoning order did not warrant interference.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a director can be summoned only when the complaint specifically alleges that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time; such a complaint is not to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 merely because the accused disputes their role.

---