Inherent jurisdiction can quash cheque dishonour proceedings where unimpeachable evidence shows the director resigned before the offence.

Recording of plea in a summons-case under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not by itself bar the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 227. The petition remained maintainable because the absence of a discharge stage after plea does not prevent scrutiny in an appropriate case, especially where abuse of process is shown on undisputed material. On the merits, unimpeachable documents indicated that the director had resigned before the cheque was issued and dishonoured, so vicarious liability under Section 141 was not made out. The proceedings against that petitioner were therefore liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable after the plea of the accused had been recorded in a summons-case prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (ii) Whether the proceedings against the petitioner, a director who asserted resignation before issuance and dishonour of the cheque, were liable to be quashed.

Issue (i): Whether a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable after the plea of the accused had been recorded in a summons-case prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The summons-case procedure does not provide a stage of discharge after recording of plea, but the absence of such a stage does not curtail the High Court's inherent jurisdiction. The precedents considered showed that while trial normally proceeds to its logical end once plea is recorded, an accused is not barred from invoking Section 482 in an appropriate case, especially where abuse of process or failure of the complaint on undisputed material is shown. Recording of plea, by itself, does not make the petition non-maintainable.

Conclusion: The petition was maintainable and could be examined on merits notwithstanding the recording of plea.

Issue (ii): Whether the proceedings against the petitioner, a director who asserted resignation before issuance and dishonour of the cheque, were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The petitioner produced Form 32 and related material showing resignation before the cheque was issued and dishonoured. The Court found no material to doubt the genuineness of the resignation documents. In a prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, vicarious liability of a director depends on being in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the relevant time. Where unimpeachable material shows that the person had ceased to be a director before the offence, continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of process. The complaint and notice did not sufficiently displace the resignation material.

Conclusion: The proceedings against the petitioner were liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The High Court exercised inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and set aside the orders below insofar as they concerned the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: In a summons-case prosecution under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the High Court may quash proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the basis of unimpeachable material showing that the accused director had resigned before the cheque-related offence, and the mere recording of plea does not bar such inherent jurisdiction.

---