https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254773 A complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act need only contain the basic averment that a director was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time; that is enough to issue process, but it does not bar quashing in every case. The High Court may examine unimpeachable material, such as clear evidence of resignation or non-involvement, if it shows continuation of prosecution would be an abuse of process. However, proceedings should not be quashed merely because the complaint lacks a detailed narrative of each director's role. On the facts stated, quashing was not justified for the other directors, but was sustained for one elderly director. en-us Fri, 17 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Jul 2025 12:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254773 A complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act need only contain the basic averment that a director was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time; that is enough to issue process, but it does not bar quashing in every case. The High Court may examine unimpeachable material, such as clear evidence of resignation or non-involvement, if it shows continuation of prosecution would be an abuse of process. However, proceedings should not be quashed merely because the complaint lacks a detailed narrative of each director's role. On the facts stated, quashing was not justified for the other directors, but was sustained for one elderly director. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 17 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254773