Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
HC quashed complaint against corporate office bearers for cheque dishonor due to insufficient legal averments. The court found no substantive evidence demonstrating petitioners' direct responsibility or involvement in cheque issuance. Crucial legal principles require explicit demonstration that accused were "in charge" and "responsible for company affairs" under Sections 138 and 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Complainant failed to establish petitioners' vicarious liability or provide specific details of their consent or knowledge regarding cheque transaction. Mere procedural reproduction of statutory provisions without substantive supporting facts cannot justify summoning accused. Petition allowed, complaint quashed against petitioners.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.