Quashing in cheque dishonour cases needs unimpeachable material; basic averments of director responsibility can sustain summoning.

Section 482 CrPC quashing in a Section 138/141 Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution is to be used sparingly, and a complaint need only contain basic averments that the director was responsible for the company's business. The High Court noted that whether the accused was in fact not in charge of the company is ordinarily a matter for trial, not threshold interference. Because the complaint alleged joint responsibility for day-to-day affairs and financial transactions, and no unimpeachable material was produced to show lack of involvement, the summoning order was upheld and pre-trial quashing was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning order issued in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act deserved to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner was not shown to be in charge of and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company and that the complaint lacked sufficient averments against her.

Analysis: The High Court reiterated that the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to be exercised sparingly and ordinarily not at the threshold unless the complaint is patently absurd, inherently improbable, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. In matters arising under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a director can be proceeded against where the complaint contains the requisite assertions of responsibility for the conduct of the business of the company, and the question whether the accused was in fact not in charge of the affairs of the company is ordinarily a matter for trial. The complaint specifically alleged that the petitioner, along with another director, was jointly responsible for the day-to-day affairs and financial transactions of the company. The petitioner also did not place unimpeachable and incontrovertible material to show that she was not concerned with the company's affairs. The Court therefore found no ground to interfere with the summoning order.

Conclusion: The challenge to the summoning order was rejected, and the petitioner was held not entitled to quashing at the pre-trial stage.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a director seeking quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must produce unimpeachable material showing that she was not in charge of the company's affairs; absent such material and where the complaint contains basic averments of responsibility, quashing is not justified.

---