Pleading sufficiency for director liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act defeats quashing at the threshold.

A criminal complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act against a company director was not quashed because the complaint itself contained averments that the director was responsible for the company's business affairs and in charge of its affairs. For offences under sections 138 and 141, the sufficiency of such pleadings is assessed from the complaint, and the director's actual role depends on the allegations and facts. The assertion that the director was only a non-executive director was treated as a defence issue for trial, not a ground for quashing at the threshold. Inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC was therefore held unwarranted, and the prosecution was permitted to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act against a company director should be quashed in exercise of inherent powers on the ground that the complaint did not disclose sufficient averments showing that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, and that the plea of being a non-executive director could defeat the prosecution at the threshold.

Analysis: The complaint contained averments that the applicant, as a director, was responsible for the business affairs of the company and was in charge of its affairs. In proceedings concerning offences under sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the sufficiency of such averments must be tested from the complaint itself, and the role of a director or officer depends upon the allegations made and the facts of the case. The claim that the applicant was only a non-executive director was treated as a matter of defence, to be examined by the trial court, and not as a ground for quashing at the inception. The court held that the complaint disclosed the necessary foundation for prosecution and that interference under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The application for quashing was not maintainable on the pleaded grounds, and the complaint was allowed to proceed against the applicant.

---