Director liability under cheque dishonour law requires specific averments and timely notice; prosecution quashed for abuse of process.

Liability of a company director under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises only where the complaint specifically alleges that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time; mere status as a director is insufficient. Where the accused became a director only after the cheques were issued and after statutory notice was served, no notice was addressed to him, and the complaint contained no specific averment of his role, continuation of the prosecution was treated as abuse of process. On those facts, the complaint proceedings were liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where the accused was not a director when the cheques were issued or the statutory notice was served, no notice was addressed to him, and the complaint contained no specific averment of his role in the company's business.

Analysis: Liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises only if the complaint specifically alleges that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time. Mere status as a director is not enough. The uncontroverted Form 32 showed that the accused became a director after the cheques were issued and after the statutory notice was served. The complaint did not contain any specific allegation against him, and no statutory notice was issued to him. In these circumstances, continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process.

Conclusion: The complaint proceedings against the petitioner were liable to be quashed and the petition was allowed.

---