Director liability in cheque dishonour cases requires specific averments, and quashing is unwarranted without unimpeachable contrary material.

In a prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a complaint against directors must contain a specific averment that they were in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time; the complaint here did so by alleging active participation in day-to-day affairs, family control, and involvement in issuing cheques and stopping payment. In quashing proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, interference is justified only where the complaint lacks that averment or unimpeachable material shows the director could never have been responsible; no such material existed here. The High Court's quashing order was set aside and the trial court's cognizance was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the complaint proceedings against the company directors under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: In a prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a complaint must contain a specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time. In quashing proceedings, the High Court must examine whether the complaint contains such an averment or whether unimpeachable material shows that the director could never have been in charge of the business. The complaint here specifically alleged active participation by the respondents in the day-to-day affairs of the company, their common family control, and their role in issuing the cheques and stopping payment. No unimpeachable evidence was produced to justify interference at the quashing stage.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings, and the complaint against the respondents was liable to continue.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the High Court's quashing order was set aside, and the trial court's cognizance order was restored for trial on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is unwarranted where the complaint contains the necessary specific averment against the director and no unimpeachable material demonstrates abuse of process.

---