Quashing of cheque dishonour complaint refused where authorised representation, vicarious liability, and electronic evidence issues required trial

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was upheld where it was filed through an authorised representative supported by board resolution and verification material showing personal knowledge and reliance on company records. The Court treated the Section 202 CrPC inquiry requirement as directory in this context and held that alleged non-compliance did not vitiate process where the Magistrate had otherwise applied mind to the material. It also found sufficient averments to invoke vicarious liability under Section 141, while disputes about electronic records, e-mails, and Section 65B compliance were matters for trial rather than quashing at the threshold. The proceedings were allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint and summoning order were liable to be quashed under the inherent jurisdiction on the ground that the authorised representative lacked personal knowledge and the complaint was not maintainable. (ii) Whether the alleged non-compliance with the inquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiated the process. (iii) Whether the complaint disclosed sufficient averments to attract vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (iv) Whether objections based on electronic records and e-mails could justify quashing at the threshold.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint and summoning order were liable to be quashed under the inherent jurisdiction on the ground that the authorised representative lacked personal knowledge and the complaint was not maintainable.

Analysis: The complaint was filed through an authorised representative supported by a board resolution. The pleadings stated that he had personal knowledge of the facts and could depose on the basis of the company record. Those averments were reiterated in the verification material. In these circumstances, the challenge that the complaint was incompetent merely because it was presented through an authorised representative was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The complaint was maintainable and no ground for quashing was made out on this basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged non-compliance with the inquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiated the process.

Analysis: The order issuing process recorded the complainant's verification and affidavit and referred to inquiry under Section 202. The decision also proceeded on the settled view that, in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the amended inquiry provision is directory and non-compliance does not automatically invalidate process where the Magistrate has otherwise applied mind to the material before issuing summons.

Conclusion: The process was not vitiated on the ground of Section 202 non-compliance.

Issue (iii): Whether the complaint disclosed sufficient averments to attract vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: The complaint alleged that the applicant was looking after the day-to-day affairs of the company, had dealt with the complainant in relation to the transaction, and had acted in connivance with the other accused. Under the settled principle governing vicarious criminal liability, a complaint must contain the necessary factual assertions showing that the person sought to be prosecuted was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business, or that the offence occurred with consent, connivance, or neglect. The complaint contained sufficient averments to cross that threshold, and disputed inconsistencies between the complaint, notice, and verification statement were matters for trial.

Conclusion: The complaint disclosed sufficient material to proceed against the applicant under Section 141.

Issue (iv): Whether objections based on electronic records and e-mails could justify quashing at the threshold.

Analysis: The objections based on the mode of proof of e-mails and the requirements of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act related to evidentiary proof at trial. At the stage of considering quashing, the Court was only required to see whether a prima facie case existed. The material relied upon by the complainant could not be rejected in the abstract without testing its admissibility and veracity in evidence.

Conclusion: The electronic evidence objections did not warrant quashing at the threshold.

Final Conclusion: The application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was found to be without merit, and the criminal proceedings were permitted to continue, with the trial court left free to decide the case on evidence uninfluenced by these observations.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a complaint will not be quashed where it contains specific averments bringing the accused within Section 141 and the objections raised concern matters of evidence, inquiry, or disputed facts to be tested at trial.

---