Cheque dishonour complaints with director responsibility allegations and disputed facts were held unsuitable for quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

In Section 138 NI Act prosecutions, printed cognizance formats did not by themselves show non-application of judicial mind where sworn statements and the record supported issuance of process, so quashing on that ground was refused. Complaints with specific averments that the accused were directors responsible for day-to-day affairs and issuance of cheques were treated as sufficient to proceed, with the extent of responsibility left for trial. Where parties raised disputed questions about whether petitioners had ceased to be directors or were unconnected with the company, those factual disputes were held unsuitable for determination under Section 482 CrPC, though one connected prosecution was quashed when unopposed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the orders taking cognizance on complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were liable to be quashed on the ground of use of printed formats and alleged non-application of judicial mind; (ii) whether the complaints lacked the necessary averments to proceed against the directors for the alleged cheque dishonour offence; (iii) whether the petitions deserved relief on the basis that some petitioners had ceased to be directors or were not connected with the company's affairs.

Issue (i): Whether the orders taking cognizance on complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were liable to be quashed on the ground of use of printed formats and alleged non-application of judicial mind.

Analysis: The complaints had been presented before the Magistrate, sworn statements were recorded, and the orders of cognizance and issuance of process disclosed sufficient material to show consideration of the record. Mere use of a printed format did not by itself establish absence of judicial application of mind. The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to be exercised with caution and only in rare cases.

Conclusion: The challenge on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaints lacked the necessary averments to proceed against the directors for the alleged cheque dishonour offence.

Analysis: The complaints contained specific assertions that the accused were directors and were responsible for the day-to-day business and affairs of the company, including the issuance of the cheques. In proceedings of this nature, the court must look to the substance of the complaint and not insist on technical or verbatim pleadings. Questions relating to the extent of responsibility of the accused were held to be matters for trial.

Conclusion: The complaints were held sufficient to proceed against the accused directors.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitions deserved relief on the basis that some petitioners had ceased to be directors or were not connected with the company's affairs.

Analysis: The documents relied on by the petitioners and the materials relied on by the complainants created disputed questions of fact, including the status of directors at the relevant time and their connection with the company's affairs. Such disputes could not be finally resolved in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and had to be tested at trial. However, as regards one petition, the respondent did not oppose quashing.

Conclusion: Relief was declined in the disputed matters, but one petition was allowed and the proceedings against the concerned accused were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The inherent jurisdiction was not available to terminate the prosecution in the cases involving disputed factual questions, but one connected prosecution was quashed and the remaining proceedings were left to continue before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where the complaint contains specific averments of responsibility of the directors and the defence raises disputed questions of fact regarding their status or role, quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not warranted and such disputes must ordinarily be decided at trial.

---