Vicarious liability of a partner under the Negotiable Instruments Act requires specific averments showing charge and responsibility for business.

For vicarious criminal liability of a partner under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complaint must contain specific averments that the person was in charge of and responsible for the firm's business at the relevant time. A general assertion is insufficient where the person was not a signatory to the cheques, was omitted from an earlier complaint on the same transaction, and no material shows participation in the subject transaction. On those facts, the HC held that interference under Section 482 CrPC was justified to prevent abuse of process, and the complaint and summoning order were quashed qua the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning order and complaint proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be quashed qua the petitioner in the absence of sufficient averments showing that she was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the partnership firm's business at the relevant time.

Analysis: For fastening vicarious criminal liability on a partner under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complaint must contain specific averments that the person sought to be prosecuted was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm at the relevant time. On an overall reading of the complaint, the petitioner was not a signatory to the cheques, the earlier complaint on the same transaction had not arrayed her as an accused, and no material was placed to show her involvement in the subject transaction beyond a general assertion. In such circumstances, the case fell within the category where unimpeachable circumstances justified interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to prevent abuse of process.

Conclusion: The complaint and summoning order were quashed qua the petitioner.

---