Vicarious liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act requires specific allegations of business responsibility before summons can stand.

In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, vicarious liability cannot be fastened on a partner or associated person unless the complaint contains prima facie allegations that, at the relevant time, the person was in charge of and responsible for the firm's business. Where the petitioner was not the cheque signatory and the complaint was silent on any role showing statutory responsibility, continuation of the complaint and summoning order amounted to abuse of process. The criminal proceedings and summons against the petitioner were therefore liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning orders and the criminal complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act were liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the petitioner was neither the signatory of the cheque nor shown to be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the firm's business.

Analysis: The complaint specifically attributed the cheque to another accused as authorised signatory and sole proprietor, while remaining silent about the petitioner's role in the transaction. For fastening liability on a partner or other associated person in a prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, there must be prima facie material showing that at the relevant time the person was in charge of and responsible for the business of the firm, or otherwise fell within the statutory framework creating vicarious liability. In the absence of such allegations or supporting material, continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process.

Conclusion: The summons and subsequent criminal proceedings qua the petitioner were liable to be quashed.

---