Specific averments against partners can sustain cheque dishonour proceedings; quashing needs sterling material showing abuse of process.

Specific averments that the accused were partners and were in charge of the firm's business were treated as sufficient to sustain criminal process under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. At the summoning stage, the court does not conduct a full trial, and quashing will not be justified unless the petitioners produce sterling, incontrovertible material showing abuse of process. On the facts stated, the complaint contained adequate allegations and the summoning order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint contained specific averments sufficient to fasten vicarious liability on the petitioners as partners and whether the summoning order warranted interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The complaint specifically alleged that the petitioners were partners of the firm and also referred to the excise licence standing in their names on behalf of the firm. In proceedings under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complainant is required to make specific averments showing that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business. At the stage of summoning, the court does not undertake a full trial, and the petitioners had not produced sterling incontrovertible material or acceptable circumstances to justify quashing of the complaint. The cited authorities did not assist the petitioners because the present complaint contained specific allegations.

Conclusion: The petition for quashing was not maintainable on the facts and the summoning order was sustained against the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: Specific averments in the complaint that the accused partner was in charge of and responsible for the business of the firm are sufficient to sustain criminal process under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and quashing at the threshold requires sterling incontrovertible material showing that continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of process.

---