Specific averments against a director can sustain cheque dishonour proceedings; disputed facts cannot be tested in quashing.

Specific averments in a complaint can sustain proceedings against a director under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act where the pleading states that the director was an authorised signatory, responsible for the day-to-day business, and acted with the other director in issuing cheques and placing purchase orders. At the summoning and quashing stage, those assertions must be taken at face value, and disputed factual questions cannot be resolved in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complaint was therefore held to disclose sufficient material to proceed, and quashing was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint contained specific averments sufficient to proceed against a director under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The complaint contained detailed assertions that the petitioner was a director and authorised signatory, was responsible for the day-to-day business and operations of the company, and acted in concert with the other director in issuing the cheques and placing the purchase orders. At the stage of summoning and quashing, such averments had to be accepted on their face value. The cited authorities did not assist the petitioner because they concerned different factual settings, including cases where only general allegations were made or where the directors were independent non-executive directors. The challenge raised disputed questions of fact, which could not be examined in proceedings under Section 482.

Conclusion: The complaint disclosed sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner, and quashing was not warranted.

---