Director liability in cheque dishonour cases requires specific averments of control, responsibility, and fraudulent inducement.

Vicarious criminal liability of a company director in cheque dishonour matters requires specific pleadings showing that the accused was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the company's business; a bare designation as director is not enough. Where the complaint and supporting material do not link the accused to issuance of the cheque, the company transaction, or any fraudulent inducement at the inception of the alleged cheating, proceedings cannot be sustained. The pleaded absence of foundational averments for both cheque dishonour liability and cheating liability meant the criminal proceedings against the petitioner were liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proceedings against the petitioner, shown only as a director/executive director, could be quashed for absence of specific averments showing that he was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business and for the alleged cheating and dishonour of cheque.

Analysis: The complaint and accompanying documents did not attribute any specific role to the petitioner in relation to the issuance of the cheque or the affairs of the company. The cheque was issued by the Managing Director, while the petitioner's name did not appear in the engagement bond or the material showing the transaction. For fastening liability under the provisions dealing with offences by companies, a bare designation as director is insufficient; the complaint must state how and in what manner the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company's business. Vicarious criminal liability under the cheque dishonour provisions is a penal exception and must be pleaded strictly, with clear averments. The record also did not disclose any specific allegation that the petitioner induced the complainant to part with money with fraudulent intent from the inception.

Conclusion: The proceedings against the petitioner were liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceedings could not continue against the petitioner in the absence of requisite foundational averments establishing company liability and cheating liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Vicarious criminal liability of a company director under cheque dishonour provisions can be fastened only when the complaint specifically pleads that the accused was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business, and such liability cannot rest on designation alone.

---