SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(SC) 350

SANJAY KAROL, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Saroj Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shyamal Kumar, AOR Ms. Apoorva Pal, Adv. Mr. Kaushal Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Aditi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Alok Sharma, Adv. Mr. Syed Faraz Ali, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar, Adv. Ms. Babita, Adv. Ms. Susmita Singh, Adv. Mr. Vishal Vishwadheesh, Adv. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Sriram P., AOR Mr. Velmurugan T, Adv. Mr. P Raja, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

What is the scope of the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC in quashing proceedings under Section 138 NI Act when a director is not shown to be in charge of day-to-day conduct of the company?

What is required to hold a director liable under Section 141 NI Act, and can mere signing of Board Resolutions establish day-to-day involvement?

What are the limits on using reframed or subsequent petitions (e.g., 482 CrPC after revision) to challenge summoning orders in NI Act cases, and how should the High Court exercise inherent powers in such context?


JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

Leave Granted.

2. The appellant is aggrieved by the High Court of Delhi’s refusal to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in terms of order dated 7th August 2025 passed and Criminal MC No.8110/2023 and Criminal M.A. No.30210/2023 to quash the summoning order issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, in connection with complaint CC NI Act 12597/2021 under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 18811[‘NI Act’], as confirmed as a consequence of the dismissal of CR No. 115/2023 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts .

3. The facts of the matter are that the appellant is one of the Directors of the accused Company namely Projtech Engineering Private Limited. The accused Company issued cheques, three in number, all dated 20th April 2021worth 15 lacs, 20 lacs and 15 lacs each, as payment for supply of iron and steel. Despite confirmation from the accused Company of availability of funds at the time of deposit of cheques, the same were returned unpaid. The reason therefor was:

    “DRAWERS SIGNATURES DIFFERS AND ALTERNATIONS/CORRECTIONS ON INSTRUMENTS OTHER THAN DATE”

Legal notice in this connection was

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top