Vicarious liability in cheque dishonour cases requires specific averments of control; proceedings against directors were quashed.

Vicarious liability for dishonour of cheque proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be presumed from mere directorship. A complaint must contain specific averments that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time, or was a signatory to the cheque. Where the cheque was signed only by another accused and no such foundational allegations were made against the directors, the statutory basis to proceed was absent. The proceedings against the petitioners were therefore liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be quashed against directors of a company in the absence of specific averments that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business or were signatories to the cheque.

Analysis: Liability of a person connected with a company for an offence under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is vicarious and cannot be presumed merely from the status of being a director. The complaint must contain specific averments that, at the time of the offence, the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business. Where the cheque is signed only by another accused and the complaint contains no such foundational averments against the petitioners, the statutory requirements for fastening liability are not satisfied.

Conclusion: The proceedings were liable to be quashed against the petitioners, as the complaint did not disclose the necessary basis to proceed against them under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

---