Specific averments are essential to fasten vicarious liability in cheque dishonour prosecutions against firm-related accused.

Criminal complaint proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Indian Penal Code may be quashed where the complaint contains no specific averments showing how each accused was responsible for the firm's business or otherwise liable. The High Court examined a cheque dishonour prosecution and held that general allegations were insufficient to fasten vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, especially where one petitioner was not shown as partner, employee, agent or manager, and another claimed retirement before the cheque transactions. The Court also treated the absence of particulars on who signed the cheques and each petitioner's role as fatal, and quashed the summons and proceedings for lack of a prima facie foundation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint proceedings and summons under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Indian Penal Code were liable to be quashed against the petitioners for want of specific averments showing their role in the firm and for absence of a prima facie case.

Analysis: The complaint was founded on dishonour of cheques and invoked Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act together with penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code. For quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the relevant enquiry was whether the complaint disclosed a prima facie case and whether the necessary averments existed to fasten liability on the persons sought to be prosecuted. In respect of the petitioner who was not shown anywhere in the partnership deed as partner, employee, agent or manager, the allegations were found to be general and unsupported by material particulars. In respect of the petitioner who claimed retirement from the firm before the cheque transactions, the complaint still did not spell out his specific role at the relevant time, and mere designation or status was held insufficient to attract vicarious criminal liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court also found that the prosecution on the facts disclosed abuse of process where the complaint lacked specific pleading as to who signed the cheques and how each petitioner was responsible for the business of the firm.

Conclusion: The complaint proceedings and summons were quashed against the petitioners for want of the requisite prima facie foundation and specific averments to sustain criminal liability.

---