Section 141 averment requirement bars quashing of cheque dishonour complaint against a sleeping partner at the threshold.

For liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a complaint need only contain the basic averment that the accused was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm or company. Specific particulars of individual role are not indispensable if that essential averment is present. A challenge under Section 482 CrPC will succeed only where unimpeachable material shows the accused could not have been concerned with the transaction and that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process. A plea that the accused was merely a sleeping partner and lacked knowledge of the transaction was treated as a defence for trial, not a ground for quashing. The process was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaints under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be quashed against a partner of the firm on the ground that he was only a sleeping partner and the complaints lacked specific particulars of his role.

Analysis: For fastening liability under Section 141, the complaint must contain the basic averment that the person sought to be prosecuted was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or firm. No particular form of pleading is required, and specific details of individual role are not indispensable if the necessary averment exists. A complaint containing such averments can sustain issuance of process, while a challenge under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may succeed only where unimpeachable material or totally acceptable circumstances show that the accused could not have been concerned with the transaction and that continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process. The plea that the petitioner was a sleeping partner and had no knowledge of the transaction was held to be a defence for trial, not a ground to quash the process at the threshold.

Conclusion: The complaint disclosed sufficient averments to proceed against the petitioner, and the process issued against him was not liable to be quashed.

---