Vicarious liability in cheque dishonour complaints survives quashing where the complaint contains specific allegations against a former director.

A former director sought quashing of a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint on the basis of resignation and alleged absence of averments attracting vicarious liability under Section 141. The Court held that the resignation document was not an unimpeachable ground for quashing because its acceptance and filing details raised factual doubt, and the complaint contained specific allegations linking the petitioner to the transaction and the company's affairs. In Section 482 CrPC proceedings, prima facie pleadings cannot be treated as contrived or bypassed without trial. The complaint was therefore permitted to proceed against the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against a former director deserved to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground of resignation and absence of adequate averments to attract vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: The resignation document was not treated as an unimpeachable basis for quashing because its acceptance and filing particulars created factual doubt, and the complaint contained specific averments regarding the petitioner's involvement in the transaction and the affairs of the company. The Court held that where the complaint contains prima facie allegations, it is not appropriate in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to declare those averments contrived and short-circuit the trial. The cited Supreme Court decisions were distinguished on facts because, unlike those cases, the present complaint was not devoid of allegations connecting the petitioner with the conduct of the company's business.

Conclusion: The prayer to quash the prosecution was rejected, and the complaint was allowed to proceed against the petitioner.

---