As per case facts, an application was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash criminal proceedings against a non-signatory director (Accused No. 4) ... under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner challenged his prosecution, arguing the complaint lacked specific averments for vicarious liability in a debt restructured via a settlement agreement to which he was not a party. The initial debt arose from a monetary accommodation by the complainant to a company, followed by a default and dishonor of a post-dated cheque. The Magistrate acknowledged the complaint's silence on the petitioner's role but couldn't recall the summoning order. The question arose whether the "silence" in the complaint regarding the specific role of a non-signatory director renders the summoning order legally unsustainable, whether a fundamental jurisdictional defect in a complaint overrides procedural delay or laches, and whether the continuation of a trial following a novation of debt to which the Petitioner was not a party constitutes an abuse of the process of law. Finally, the High Court concluded that no deemed liability exists for a director merely by designation, and specific factual averments linking them to day-to-day management are jurisdictional prerequisites. For restructured debts, liability is confined to those who negotiated and executed the settlement. The court emphasized its duty to prevent illegal prosecution, noting that inherent illegality in a summoning order cannot be cured by procedural delays or laches, and forcing a non-signatory director to trial without specific links amounts to an abuse of the legal process.