Threshold quashing in cheque dishonour cases fails where complaints plead specific company-role averments and cheque-signing participation.

In complaints under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC will not succeed where the complaint contains specific averments that the accused were involved in obtaining loans, executing loan documents, issuing cheques, or were otherwise responsible for the company's business. The court treated signatures on loan documents, board resolutions, and cheques as material supporting the allegations, and held that disputed issues such as resignation, genuineness of documents, and the exact extent of responsibility must be determined at trial. The summoning orders were therefore sustained and the prosecution was allowed to proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning orders in complaints under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 deserved to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the petitioners were not in charge of the company, had resigned before dishonour, or had not been assigned specific roles.

Analysis: The complaints contained specific averments regarding the role of the petitioners in obtaining loans, executing the loan agreements, issuing post-dated cheques, and being responsible for repayment. The record also showed that two petitioners had signed the loan documents and related board resolutions, while one petitioner was the signatory of the cheques. The Court applied the settled principle that, for offences by companies, liability under Section 141 arises where the complaint, read as a whole, discloses that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business, or where the accused signed the cheque or otherwise participated with consent, connivance, or neglect. The Court further held that disputed questions regarding resignation, the genuineness of documents, and the exact extent of responsibility could not be examined in a petition for quashing and had to be decided at trial.

Conclusion: The summoning orders disclosed sufficient material and did not warrant interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitions were therefore liable to fail.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was permitted to proceed against the petitioners, and the challenge to the summoning orders was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 should not be quashed at the threshold where it contains specific averments showing the accused's role in the company's transaction or issuance of the cheque, and disputed questions regarding resignation or actual responsibility must ordinarily be tested at trial.

---