Vicarious liability under cheque dishonour law requires specific pleadings that the accused was in charge of the business.

A complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be sustained against a person who is neither the cheque signatory nor specifically averred to be in charge of and responsible for the firm's business. Vicarious criminal liability depends on clear pleadings showing the accused's role at the relevant time; mere presence during negotiations, association with the accused, or relationship with a partner is insufficient. Where the complaint did not explain the person's capacity and admitted documents showed she was neither a partner nor an authorised signatory, continuation of prosecution was held to be an abuse of process and the complaint and summoning order were quashed to that extent.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be sustained against a person who was neither a signatory to the cheque nor shown by specific averments to be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm.

Analysis: Liability under Section 138 attaches to the person who draws the cheque on an account maintained by that person. Vicarious liability under Section 141 arises only where the complaint contains clear and specific averments showing that the person sought to be prosecuted was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the relevant time. Mere presence during negotiations, association with the accused, or relationship with a partner is insufficient. On the admitted documents, the petitioner was not a partner, was not the authorised signatory, and the complaint did not explain the capacity in which she allegedly acted for the firm. In these circumstances, continuation of prosecution amounted to abuse of process.

Conclusion: The complaint and summoning order were unsustainable against the petitioner and were quashed to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution could not be maintained against a non-partner, non-signatory in the absence of the mandatory pleadings needed to attract vicarious criminal liability.

Ratio Decidendi: For prosecution under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complaint must specifically plead and prima facie show that the accused was the cheque signatory or was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business; absent such averments, proceedings cannot be sustained.

---