Mandatory averment in cheque dishonour complaints against company officers was absent, so criminal proceedings were quashed.

Complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act against a company officer require a specific averment that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time. On scrutiny, the complaints lacked that mandatory factual foundation, so continuation of the proceedings was treated as an abuse of process. The complaints, summoning orders, orders refusing discharge, and consequential proceedings against the appellant were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the connected summoning and discharge orders were liable to be quashed for want of the requisite averment that the appellant was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business.

Analysis: The complaints were examined to ascertain whether they contained the mandatory factual foundation needed to proceed against a company officer for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The governing principle was that such proceedings require a specific averment that the person proceeded against was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. On scrutiny, the complaints did not contain the necessary averments. In those circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant would amount to an abuse of the process of court.

Conclusion: The complaints, the summoning orders, the orders refusing discharge, and all consequential proceedings against the appellant were quashed.

---