Cheque dishonour complaints can proceed against directors where the complaint specifically pleads business responsibility at the relevant time.

In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheque dishonour, summoning of a company and its directors is sustainable where the complaint contains specific averments that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time. The High Court noted that the complaint alleged responsibility when the cheque was issued and dishonoured, while the applicants failed to deny those pleadings with supporting material. On that basis, the plea that no liability could attach to the company or directors was rejected, and quashing was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning order and complaint proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 deserved to be quashed on the ground that the company and its directors were not liable in the absence of specific pleadings showing that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time.

Analysis: The complaint specifically alleged that the accused persons were responsible for the conduct of the company's business when the cheque was issued and dishonoured by stop payment. The applicants did not deny those pleadings in the petition and did not place material to show that they were not in charge of, or responsible for, the company's business. Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 fastens liability on the company and on those persons who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of its business at the time of commission of the offence, and the Supreme Court authority relied upon only reinforces that criminal liability arises from the role actually played and the facts pleaded in the complaint.

Conclusion: The challenge to the summoning order failed, as the complaint disclosed the necessary basis for proceeding against the company and its directors and the plea of non-liability was untenable.

Final Conclusion: The application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was held to be misconceived and was dismissed, leaving the complaint proceedings to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for dishonour of cheque against a company, summoning of directors or other officers is sustainable where the complaint contains specific averments that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the relevant time, and a bare denial without supporting material is insufficient to secure quashing.

---