JUDGMENT : 1. - By order dated 30.8.2005, notice for final disposal was issued. From the record, it appears that notice for final disposal has been served on the contesting respondent No. 2 personally. No one appears for the contesting respondent No. 2 though served. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and public prosecutor for State. 3. By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner seeks quashing of complaint qua the him on the ground that in the plaint there is no averment that the petitioner was in charge of the company and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla & Anr., 2005(3) Apex Criminal 229 : 2006(1) NIJ 97 (SC) , wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is necessary to specifically aver in complaint under Section 141 that at the time offence was committed, the person accused was incharge of and responsible for conduct of business of company. This averment is an essential requirement of Section 141 and has to be made in complaint. Without this averment being made in a complaint, the requirement of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied. 4. I have carefully gone through the complaint filed by non-petitioner No. 2. There is no such averment so far as the present petitioner is concerned. The case in hand is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.M.S. Pharmaceutical Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla & Anr. (supra). 5. In this view of the matter, in my view, the complaint qua the petitioner cannot be maintained and is liable to be quashed. 6. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The criminal complaint No. 153 of 2004 qua the petitioner is quashed. Stay application stands disposed of.Order accordingly. *******