Specific averments of company responsibility can sustain cheque dishonour prosecution against officers in quashing proceedings.

In a prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, complaint proceedings can be sustained where the pleadings specifically state that the accused were in charge of and responsible for the company's business. The court noted that the petitioners were described as key persons handling the company's affairs, and those averments, together with the supporting documents, justified issuance of process. A challenge based on Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not treated as a basis for interference in Section 482 proceedings. The complaint and summoning order were therefore not quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint and summoning order deserved to be quashed against the petitioners in a prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the ground that the complaint lacked specific averments showing that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business and that the plea based on Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 warranted interference.

Analysis: The complaint and supporting documents were examined to determine the role attributed to the petitioners in the company's affairs. The settled position under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was applied, namely that persons who are shown to be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business can be proceeded against when the complaint contains necessary averments, while other categories of officers require specific role-based allegations. On the facts pleaded, the petitioners were specifically referred to as key persons handling the affairs of the company and bearing responsibility on its behalf, and the trial court had considered those averments and the documents while issuing process. The challenge based on Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not treated as a ground for interference under Section 482.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to quashing of the complaint or the summoning order.

Final Conclusion: The criminal miscellaneous application failed and the proceedings against the petitioners were allowed to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, process can be sustained where the complaint contains specific averments showing that the accused were in charge of and responsible for the company's business, and such an order will not be quashed in Section 482 proceedings merely on a generalized challenge to the complaint or on a territorial objection not fit for examination at that stage.

---