Cheque dishonour complaints: specific averments of responsibility defeat threshold quashing, while resignation remains a matter for trial.

Specific averments that company directors were in charge of day-to-day affairs and had assured honouring of cheques were treated as sufficient to sustain complaints under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The High Court's Section 482 CrPC jurisdiction was held to be limited, and at the summoning stage it could not undertake a detailed merits inquiry or quash proceedings unless the material was sterling and unimpeachable. The petitioners' plea that they had resigned before presentation and dishonour was held to be a matter for evidence, so the summoning orders were sustained and the complaints were allowed to proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning orders in the cheque dishonour complaints were liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the petitioners had resigned from the company before presentation and dishonour of the cheques, and whether the complaint contained sufficient averments to attract vicarious liability under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The challenge to the summoning orders was examined on the basis that the High Court's power under Section 482 is limited and can be exercised only when the material produced is of such sterling and unimpeachable quality that it would rule out the charge. At the stage of issuance of process, the court is concerned only with a prima facie view on the complaint and supporting material, and not with a detailed inquiry into the merits. The complaint specifically alleged that the petitioners were directors in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the company and had given assurances that the cheques would be honoured, and those averments were treated as sufficient to require trial. Whether the resignation plea was ultimately correct was held to be a matter for evidence and not for quashing at the threshold.

Conclusion: The petitions for quashing were not maintainable on the facts pleaded, and the summoning orders were sustained.

Final Conclusion: Specific and attributable averments of control and assurance were sufficient to let the prosecution proceed, and the resignation defence could not defeat the complaints at the threshold stage.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 will not be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 where it contains specific averments of responsibility and involvement, unless the accused produces sterling and incontrovertible material showing that continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of process.

---