Criminal process against bank officers may continue where complaint alleges active role, suppression, and prima facie criminal intent.

Process in a complaint against bank officers may be sustained where the complaint contains material showing their active role, possible collusion, and criminal intent; designation alone is insufficient, but personal liability can be inferred from specific allegations and supporting facts. In this matter, the assignment transaction, non-disclosure to the complainant, and the appellants' attributed roles provided a prima facie basis to continue proceedings, including one appellant's signature on the assignment deed. Withdrawal of the complaint against a co-accused did not exonerate the appellants, as their involvement had to be assessed independently on the complaint material. Quashing was therefore refused and the prosecution was allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint and the order issuing process against the bank officers were liable to be quashed for want of a prima facie case and in the absence of sufficient material showing their personal role or criminal intent.

Analysis: A complaint supporting issuance of process must disclose sufficient ground for proceeding. In the context of offences alleged against officers of a corporate entity, personal criminal liability cannot be inferred merely from designation; there must be material showing active participation and criminal intent, or a statutory basis for vicarious liability. On the facts, the assignment transaction, the non-disclosure of the assignment to the complainant, and the roles attributed to the appellants showed a disputed but arguable case of suppression and possible collusion. The Court also noted that the appellants were officers responsible for the bank's functioning and that one was a signatory to the assignment deed. At the same time, the withdrawal of the complaint against the co-accused did not by itself exonerate the appellants, because their alleged involvement had to be assessed independently on the material in the complaint.

Conclusion: The complaint disclosed sufficient material to justify continuation of proceedings against the appellants, and quashing was not warranted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits at the stage of quashing, and the criminal proceedings against the appellants were permitted to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: In a complaint against officers of a company or bank, process may be issued and criminal proceedings may continue where the complaint contains material indicating their active role and criminal intent in the alleged offence, even though no general rule of vicarious liability applies in the absence of statute.

---