Quashing of cheque dishonour complaint requires unimpeachable proof, not disputed claims about resignation or non-signatory status.

A complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not liable to be quashed at the pre-trial stage merely because the accused claimed to have resigned as director or denied being the signatory to the cheques. The court reiterated that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC must be used sparingly, and quashing is justified only where unimpeachable material shows that no offence is made out. Where the complaint contains the basic averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time, disputed questions about resignation, actual control, and supporting company records must ordinarily be tried. The petition was rejected and the proceedings were allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning orders and consequential complaint proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the petitioner was not a signatory to the cheques, had resigned as director, and was not responsible for the company's day-to-day affairs at the relevant time.

Analysis: In proceedings for quashing at the pre-trial stage, the inherent power is to be exercised sparingly and only where the accused places unimpeachable material showing that no offence is made out or that the complaint is inherently unsustainable. For liability under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complaint must contain the basic averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. Once such averments are made, the issue of whether the director was actually in charge, whether resignation took effect before the relevant events, and whether company records support the defence are matters of trial unless the accused produces sterling and uncontroverted material conclusively disproving the allegations. The record disclosed that the petitioner was shown as a director at the time of issuance of the cheques, the complaint contained the requisite averments, and the defence raised involved disputed factual questions not fit for determination in quashing jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The complaint and summoning orders were not liable to be quashed, and the petitioner's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were permitted to continue, and the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a complaint containing the basic averment that a director was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time cannot be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 unless the accused produces unimpeachable material conclusively negating such liability.

---