Summary
The Supreme Court quashed a cheque-dishonour complaint only against the appellant partner because it lacked the averments necessary for vicarious liability. A general statement that the partners were responsible for day-to-day business did not allege that he was in charge of and responsible for conducting the firm’s business when the offence occurred. The complaint separately attributed the purchases and cheque issuance to other accused.
Issues
- Whether the complaint sufficiently pleaded the appellant partner’s vicarious liability under Section 141(1).
- Whether the proceedings against him warranted quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
Provisions considered
- Sections 138 and 141(1), Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Vicarious liability required the statutory conditions cumulatively at the time of the offence; the complaint’s general allegations about partnership and business responsibility were insufficient here. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The insufficient averments justified quashing the complaint as against the appellant alone. (¶¶ 10, 17)
Held
- The complainant must plead the basic facts attracting vicarious liability: the accused was both in charge of and responsible to the company or firm for conducting its business at the relevant time. The two requirements must be read together. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 15, 16)
- The complaint merely described the partners as responsible for day-to-day business and attributed purchases and cheque issuance to other accused. It neither averred the appellant’s relevant charge of business nor disclosed a clear specific role establishing the statutory liability. (¶¶ 7, 8, 12, 13, 17)
- S.P. Mani did not remove the requirement for the necessary basic averments. Their absence independently justified quashing against the appellant, without requiring a trial to resolve his separate claim of earlier retirement from the partnership. (¶¶ 4, 5, 10, 11, 17)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs. High Court order set aside; criminal complaint quashed only against the appellant, accused No. 4.