Summoning orders under Section 138 quashed for lack of specific allegations. Director role details required for vicarious liability.

The court quashed the summoning orders under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as the complaint failed to sufficiently allege the petitioner's specific role in the company's business, thus not meeting the requirements for vicarious liability under Section 141. The court emphasized that mere director designation is insufficient, and specific averments detailing the director's responsibility for the company's conduct are necessary to establish liability. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the summoning orders were quashed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the summoning order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Requirements for vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Specific averments needed in a complaint to make a director liable under Section 141.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Summoning Order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 31.01.2017 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, summoning the petitioner and others to face trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the order dated 01.03.2018 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, which dismissed the revision petition against the summoning order. The complaint alleged that the petitioner, along with others, was involved in issuing a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. However, the petitioner contended that she did not sign the cheque and the complaint did not specify her role in the company's day-to-day business.

2. Requirements for Vicarious Liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The court emphasized that for a director to be held vicariously liable under Section 141, it must be specifically averred in the complaint that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time the offence was committed. The court cited several precedents, including *S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla* and *Pooja Ravinder Devidasani Vs. State of Maharashtra*, to highlight that mere designation as a director is insufficient for liability under Section 141. The complaint must detail how and in what manner the director was responsible for the company's business.

3. Specific Averments Needed in a Complaint to Make a Director Liable under Section 141:
The court scrutinized the complaint and found it lacking in specific averments regarding the petitioner's role in the company's business. It noted that the complaint did not state that the petitioner was in charge of or responsible for the company's day-to-day operations. The court reiterated that such averments are mandatory to invoke vicarious liability under Section 141. The absence of these details in the complaint rendered the summoning order unsustainable.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the complaint did not meet the statutory requirements for holding the petitioner vicariously liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the complaint, along with the summoning orders dated 31.01.2017 and 01.03.2018, was quashed.

---