https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279714 A criminal complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act against a company director was not quashed because the complaint itself contained averments that the director was responsible for the company's business affairs and in charge of its affairs. For offences under sections 138 and 141, the sufficiency of such pleadings is assessed from the complaint, and the director's actual role depends on the allegations and facts. The assertion that the director was only a non-executive director was treated as a defence issue for trial, not a ground for quashing at the threshold. Inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC was therefore held unwarranted, and the prosecution was permitted to continue. en-us Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Apr 2019 14:49:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279714 A criminal complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act against a company director was not quashed because the complaint itself contained averments that the director was responsible for the company's business affairs and in charge of its affairs. For offences under sections 138 and 141, the sufficiency of such pleadings is assessed from the complaint, and the director's actual role depends on the allegations and facts. The assertion that the director was only a non-executive director was treated as a defence issue for trial, not a ground for quashing at the threshold. Inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC was therefore held unwarranted, and the prosecution was permitted to continue. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279714