Basic averments against company directors can sustain cheque dishonour prosecution unless unimpeachable material justifies quashing

A complaint against non-signatory company directors under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is sufficient where it specifically alleges that they were in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time; mere designation as director is not enough, but basic averments about management involvement, day-to-day affairs, and cheque-related settlement will attract the statutory deeming fiction. Quashing under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is available only if the accused produces unimpeachable material showing they were not responsible for the business and that continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process. A plea of resignation or non-signatory status, without such material, does not displace the complaint.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint contained the basic averments necessary to attract vicarious liability of non-signatory directors under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; (ii) whether the applicants had placed unimpeachable material to show that they were not in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time so as to justify quashing under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint contained the basic averments necessary to attract vicarious liability of non-signatory directors under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The governing principle is that a complaint must specifically aver that, at the time of the offence, the person sought to be prosecuted was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Mere designation as a director is insufficient. The complaint, read as a whole, contained categorical assertions that the applicants were part of the management, were involved in the day-to-day affairs, and were actively concerned with the settlement and issuance of cheques. These allegations were treated as sufficient basic averments to attract the statutory deeming fiction.

Conclusion: The complaint did contain the basic averments required to proceed against the applicants under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicants had placed unimpeachable material to show that they were not in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time so as to justify quashing under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The power to quash may be exercised despite basic averments only where the accused produces unimpeachable and incontrovertible material showing that prosecution would be an abuse of process. The applicants relied on a plea of resignation and on the fact that they were not signatories to the settlement or cheques, but no material of the requisite quality was produced. The surrounding circumstances, including the absence of a contemporaneous stand of resignation in the reply to notice, did not establish that they could not have been concerned with the transaction or the company's affairs.

Conclusion: No case for quashing was made out, and the applicants remained liable to face trial.

Final Conclusion: The criminal process was permitted to continue because the complaint disclosed the requisite foundational allegations and no exceptional material was shown to displace them.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions for dishonour of cheques against company directors, a complaint containing the basic averment of responsibility for the company's business is sufficient to issue process, and quashing is warranted only when the accused produces unimpeachable material demonstrating that prosecution would be an abuse of process.

---