Vague criminal allegations and later directorship were insufficient to sustain prosecution; stale, civil disputes may be quashed.

Specific allegations are required to sustain criminal charges of cheating, criminal breach of trust, conspiracy, or related offences; vague and omnibus averments, without a distinct overt act, were held insufficient. A later-appointed director could not be fastened with liability on a theory of continuing offence or vicarious liability for a transaction that predated his entry, absent material showing participation from inception. The complaint was also treated as stale, with unexplained delay, serious doubt on territorial jurisdiction, and mechanical issuance of process. On these grounds, the proceedings were quashed as an abuse of process, the dispute being essentially civil in character.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint and the materials before the Magistrate disclosed the ingredients of offences under Sections 406, 418, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner. (ii) Whether the petitioner could be proceeded against on a theory of continuing offence or vicarious liability when he became a director only in 2005 and the transaction complained of was of 1992-94. (iii) Whether the complaint suffered from inordinate delay, lack of territorial jurisdiction, and mechanical issuance of process, warranting exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint and the materials before the Magistrate disclosed the ingredients of offences under Sections 406, 418, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner.

Analysis: The complaint and the statement on solemn affirmation did not contain specific averments showing the petitioner's role in cheating, entrustment, criminal breach of trust, or conspiracy. The allegations were treated as vague and omnibus, and the materials placed before the Magistrate did not show any distinct overt act by the petitioner. A mere signatory role in later company documents did not, by itself, establish the commission of the alleged offences.

Conclusion: The ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner could be proceeded against on a theory of continuing offence or vicarious liability when he became a director only in 2005 and the transaction complained of was of 1992-94.

Analysis: The alleged sale, representations, and non-development of the project occurred years before the petitioner joined the company. The Court held that criminal liability does not travel by vicarious attribution in the absence of a statutory basis, and that a later entrant cannot be roped in for an offence that had already occurred unless participation from the inception is shown. The petitioner's later association and signing of annual documents did not establish continued participation in the original alleged wrongdoing.

Conclusion: The petitioner could not be fastened with liability on the basis of continuing offence or vicarious liability.

Issue (iii): Whether the complaint suffered from inordinate delay, lack of territorial jurisdiction, and mechanical issuance of process, warranting exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings.

Analysis: The complaint was lodged about 17 years after the alleged transaction, and the delay was not satisfactorily explained. The materials also raised serious doubt about territorial jurisdiction, as the core transaction related to Hyderabad, while the Magistrate at Calcutta issued process without adequate discussion. The order taking cognizance and issuing bailable warrant was found not to reflect proper application of judicial mind, and the dispute was considered essentially civil in nature with a criminal colour added to it. In these circumstances, continuation of the prosecution was held to be oppressive and abusive of the process of court.

Conclusion: The proceedings were liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The criminal revisions were allowed and the connected complaint cases against the petitioner were quashed as an abuse of the process of court.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of specific allegations showing the petitioner's role in the alleged offences from the inception, a later director cannot be prosecuted on vicarious or continuing-offence reasoning, and the High Court may quash proceedings that are stale, civil in substance, and initiated without proper application of judicial mind.

---