Summons Against Three Directors Quashed For Want Of Specific Averments
A supplier's cheque-bounce complaint named several officers of the buyer company. The Calcutta High Court has quashed the case against three of them.
The Court held that vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act needs specific averments about each accused; a general complaint without individual acts is legally inadequate. The Magistrate must apply judicial mind before summons. The proceedings and summons were quashed as against the three petitioners.
- Say what each director did. Repeating the words of Section 141 is not enough.
- The Magistrate must check first, before issuing summons.
- Relief is personal — the case was quashed only for the three petitioners.
- Abuse of process was the Court's description of prosecuting without such averments.
- Court
- High Court at Calcutta
- Bench
- Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
- Citation
- CRR No. 2286 of 2024
- Case
- CRR No. 2286 of 2024
- Decided
- 11 September 2026
- Outcome
- Criminal revision allowed; proceedings and summons quashed against three petitioners
The complaint
A plastics company filed a complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before a Metropolitan Magistrate in Calcutta, naming the buyer company's officers as accused.
Summons issued in April 2024. Three of the accused asked the High Court to quash the proceedings against them.
What the Court held
A complaint that does not make specific averments about the individual acts or role of each accused is legally inadequate to sustain a criminal prosecution based on vicarious liability.
At the pre-summoning stage, the Magistrate must rigorously apply judicial mind to check whether the foundations of vicarious liability are prima facie disclosed against each named person before issuing process.
Where the complaint lacks those averments, starting and continuing the prosecution against such individuals is an abuse of the process.
The result
The revision was allowed, and the proceedings and the summoning order were quashed solely as regards the three petitioners.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can every director of a company be prosecuted for its bounced cheque?
Only if the complaint specifically pleads their role. Here the case was quashed against three.
When should the Magistrate check this?
Before issuing summons, the Court said.
Drafting or answering a company cheque complaint
- State, for each director, how they were in charge of and responsible for the business.
- Avoid simply copying the words of Section 141.
- If you are named, check the complaint for any individual averment.
- Challenge summons early where none exists.
Source. High Court at Calcutta, CRR No. 2286 of 2024, decided 11 September 2026 by Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court at Calcutta and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in