Vicarious liability in cheque bounce cases requires specific averments; process against an out-of-jurisdiction accused needs Section 202 scrutiny.

Vicarious criminal liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises only where the complaint contains specific averments that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time; mere designation as Company Secretary is insufficient. On the stated facts, the petitioner was not the cheque signatory, had ceased association with the company, and no particular role in the transaction or day-to-day affairs was pleaded, so the complaint could not be sustained against her. Where the accused resides outside the Magistrate's jurisdiction, Section 202 of the CrPC requires postponement of process and inquiry or investigation before issuance; the mechanical issuance of process without that exercise was therefore invalid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be sustained against a Company Secretary in the absence of specific averments showing that she was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time; (ii) Whether issuance of process against the petitioner was vitiated for non-compliance with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when she was residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be sustained against a Company Secretary in the absence of specific averments showing that she was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time.

Analysis: Liability under Section 141 arises only when a person was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. Mere designation in the company is not enough. The materials before the Court showed that the petitioner was only a Company Secretary, had ceased to be associated with the company on 31.03.2013, was not the signatory of the cheque, and no specific role in the transaction or day-to-day business affairs was pleaded or shown. The complaint contained only general allegations without particulars establishing the statutory ingredients for fastening vicarious criminal liability.

Conclusion: The complaint was not sustainable against the petitioner on merits under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (ii): Whether issuance of process against the petitioner was vitiated for non-compliance with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when she was residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court.

Analysis: Where the accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, Section 202 requires postponement of process and an inquiry or investigation for deciding whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The trial court issued process without such scrutiny and without satisfying itself on the basis of materials as to how the petitioner could be treated as responsible for the company's business or cheque issuance. The order issuing process was therefore mechanical and did not reflect the mandatory consideration required by law.

Conclusion: The issuance of process was vitiated for non-compliance with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: Continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process, and the revisional court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceeding insofar as the petitioner was concerned.

Ratio Decidendi: Vicarious criminal liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be inferred from office or designation alone, and where the accused resides outside jurisdiction, the Magistrate must comply with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before issuing process.

---