The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific averments in a complaint to establish the vicarious liability of directors and officers of a company under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

V.B. GUPTA, J.

1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in all these above mentioned petitions, all these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Present petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the criminal complaint cases filed under Section 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short as Act) as well as summoning order, pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Court, Delhi.

3. Respondent No.1, herein, has filed complaints under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Act against the present petitioner and others including M/s Earthtech Enterprises Ltd., accused company, on the allegations that respondent No.1 is a cooperative society duly registered under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 and is engaged in the business of marketing of agricultural products and Nafed financial activities is the consonance of cooperative motto.

4. The accused company represented by Mr.Avdesh Kumar Singh, one of the Director, approached respondent No.1 to avail credit facilities for import of various agricultural and nonagricultural commodities. In this regard, Memorandum of Understanding dated 16th October, 2003 was executed between the complainant society and the accused company represented by Sh.Avdesh Kumar Singh. By virtue of this Memorandum of Understanding, respondent No.1 was provided with foreign and inland letter of credit facilities for importing various agricultural and non-agricultural commodities on their account. In addition, respondent No.1 also associated Merchanting Trade Transaction with the accused company to facilitate the import of commodities from one country and its subsequent sale to other country without touching Indian territory/ports on account of the accused No.1 as per guidelines issued by RBI. The accused company kept on promising to pay the outstanding amount from time to time without any intention to pay. During the course of transaction, the accused company under went financial liabilities of Rs.202.60 crores vis-a-vis Inland, Foreign LCs and Rs.235.15 crores vis a vis Merchanting Trade towards the respondent No.1 society.

5. Towards the discharge of above mentioned financial liabilities, the accused company provided the respondent No.1 with post dates cheques worth Rs.180 crores of different values payable on different dates. Out of these cheques, one cheque for Rs.5 crores was deposited by respondent No.1 with its bankers for encashment but the said cheque was unpaid with the remarks funds insufficient. Respondent No.1 informed the accused regarding the dishonour of the cheque and asked them to pay the amount. However, the accused did not pay any heed to the request of the respondent No.1. Thereafter legal notice was sent and despite that accused failed to make the payment against the said cheque.

6. It is further alleged in the complaint that accused No.2 to 4 at the time of the commission of the offence were in charge of and were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company and, therefore, the accused No.2 to 4 as well as accused No.1(company) are liable for offence committed by accused No.1 under Section 138 of the Act. The present petitioner, is accused No.3 in this case. With these allegations, respondent No.1 has filed these complaint cases against petitioner and other accused persons.

7. Vide impugned order, the learned Magistrate summoned the accused persons to face trial under Section 138 of the Act. 8. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a bare reading of the complaint goes on to show that there are no allegations whatsoever against the petitioner alleging that he was incharge of and/or was responsible, for the conduct of the business of the company, in accordance with the settled law. Further, a perusal of the complaint emphatically establishes, that no allegation