Basic averments against company directors can sustain process in cheque dishonour complaints; threshold quashing needs unimpeachable material.

A complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act against company directors was found sufficient where it specifically averred that they were in charge of and responsible for the company's day-to-day affairs and management at the time of the offence. The Court applied the settled principle that such a basic averment is enough to sustain issuance of process against directors, and that quashing at the threshold is unwarranted absent unimpeachable material showing they had no concern with the cheque transaction. It also reiterated that jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC does not permit a mini trial. The challenge to process therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 contained the necessary averments to sustain issuance of process against the directors of the drawer company.

Analysis: The complaint specifically stated that the accused directors were in charge of and responsible for the day-to-day affairs and management of the company at the time of the alleged offence. The Court applied the settled position that, for a director, a basic averment regarding being in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business is sufficient to justify issuance of process. It further noted that, in the absence of unimpeachable and incontrovertible material showing that the directors could not have been concerned with the issuance of cheques, the complaint could not be quashed at the threshold. The Court also relied on the principle that it should not conduct a mini trial while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The challenge to the issuance of process failed, and the complaint was held not liable to be quashed against the petitioners.

---