Cheque dishonour complaints survive quashing where statutory presumptions, vicarious liability averments, and trial issues remain disputed.

Complaints for cheque dishonour were treated as sustainable where demand notice was served on the director who signed the cheques, future-dated cheques became actionable on maturity, and the statutory presumption under Section 139 supported the existence of a legally recoverable liability. The company's liquidation and the petitioner's resignation were not treated as grounds to defeat prosecution at the quashing stage, and the limitation objection failed on the pleaded facts. For vicarious liability, the complaint was read as a whole and its averments that the petitioner was Chairman and ible for the company's affairs were held sufficient to require trial. Inherent power under Section 482 was therefore not exercised to terminate the proceedings at the threshold.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be quashed on the grounds of want of notice, limitation, absence of legally enforceable liability, and the effect of the company's liquidation and the petitioner's resignation; (ii) whether the complaint contained sufficient averments to fasten vicarious liability on the petitioner as Chairman of the company; and (iii) whether the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised to interdict the prosecutions at the threshold.

Issue (i): Whether the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be quashed on the grounds of want of notice, limitation, absence of legally enforceable liability, and the effect of the company's liquidation and the petitioner's resignation.

Analysis: Service of demand notice on the director who signed the cheques was treated as service on the company. The cheques were issued as future-dated cheques and therefore became actionable on their dates of maturity. The offence under Section 138 carries a statutory presumption under Section 139 that the cheque was issued for a legally recoverable liability. The company's liquidation did not wipe out the criminal liability arising from dishonour of cheques. The plea of resignation was treated as a matter not sufficient, at the quashing stage, to negate the complaint when the complainant could still establish continued responsibility or a change in management to avoid liability. The limitation objection was rejected on the facts showing presentation of the complaint within the prescribed period after cause of action arose.

Conclusion: The challenge on these grounds failed and the complaints were not liable to be quashed on want of notice, limitation, absence of debt, liquidation, or resignation.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint contained sufficient averments to fasten vicarious liability on the petitioner as Chairman of the company.

Analysis: Liability under Section 141 attaches to persons who were, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. A mere designation is not enough, but the complaint is to be read as a whole and need not reproduce the statutory language verbatim if the substance of the allegations satisfies the legal requirement. The complaints specifically described the petitioner as Chairman and asserted his knowledge of the transactions and his responsibility in relation to the company's affairs. In such prosecutions, the threshold for quashing is high, and the question whether the petitioner had in fact ceased to be responsible was treated as a matter for trial.

Conclusion: The averments were sufficient at the threshold, and the petitioner could not avoid prosecution on the ground of absence of specific pleadings.

Issue (iii): Whether the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised to interdict the prosecutions at the threshold.

Analysis: The power under Section 482 is to be exercised sparingly and only to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. Where the complaint discloses the ingredients of the offence and the disputed issues require evidence, quashing is unwarranted. The proceedings related to dishonour of cheques involving public money, and the objections raised by the petitioner were not such as to justify termination of the prosecutions before trial.

Conclusion: The High Court declined to exercise its inherent power to quash the proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The criminal complaints were permitted to proceed, and the petitions challenging them were rejected with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a complaint is not to be quashed if, read as a whole, it contains substantive averments that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company's business, because such liability and related factual defences ordinarily require trial and evidence.

---