* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 18^th December, 2025.

Pronounced on: 24^th December, 2025

Uploaded on: 25^th December, 2025

+ CRL.M.C. 8175/2025, CRL.M.A. 34154/2025, CRL.M.A.

34155/2025, CRL.M.A. 34156/2025 & CRL.M.A. 34157/2025

DINESH KUMAR PANDEY .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sumit Chauhan, Mr. Sushant

Kumar, Advocates.

versus

M/S SINGH FINLEASE PVT. LTD. & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Virat K. Anand, Mr. Kumar

Shashank, Mr. Harish Nadda, Mr. Vikalp Singh, Ms. Srishty Kaul, Ms.

Swati Kwatra, Advocates.

+ CRL.M.C. 8176/2025, CRL.M.A. 34158/2025, CRL.M.A.

34159/2025, CRL.M.A. 34160/2025 & CRL.M.A. 34161/2025

DINESH KUMAR PANDEY .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sumit Chauhan, Mr. Sushant

Kumar, Advocates.

versus

M/S SINGH FINLEASE PVT. LTD. & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Virat K. Anand, Mr. Kumar

Shashank, Mr. Harish Nadda, Mr. Vikalp Singh, Ms. Srishty Kaul, Ms.

Swati Kwatra, Advocates.

+ CRL.M.C. 8177/2025, CRL.M.A. 34162/2025, CRL.M.A.

34163/2025, CRL.M.A. 34164/2025 & CRL.M.A. 34165/2025 DINESH KUMAR PANDEY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumit Chauhan, Mr. Sushant Kumar, Advocates.

versus M/S SINGH FINLEASE PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Virat K. Anand, Mr. Kumar Shashank, Mr. Harish Nadda, Mr. Vikalp Singh, Ms. Srishty Kaul, Ms.

Swati Kwatra, Advocates.

+ CRL.M.C. 8178/2025, CRL.M.A. 34166/2025, CRL.M.A.

34167/2025, CRL.M.A. 34168/2025 & CRL.M.A. 34169/2025 DINESH KUMAR PANDEY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumit Chauhan, Mr. Sushant Kumar, Advocates.

versus M/S SINGH FINLEASE PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Virat K. Anand, Mr. Kumar Shashank, Mr. Harish Nadda, Mr. Vikalp Singh, Ms. Srishty Kaul, Ms.

Swati Kwatra, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J.:

1. These petitions under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, “BNSS” impugn the complaints under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,, “the NI Act” instituted by the Respondent, a Non- Banking Financial Company, in relation to loan facilities extended to two private limited companies. The Petitioner, who was a director of the borrower companies at the time of sanction and execution of the loan agreements and related documentation, has been arrayed as an accused in each complaint. He contends that, having resigned from the Board prior to dishonour of the cheques and the alleged commission of the offence under Section 138 NI Act, he cannot be held vicariously liable under Section 141, and that the summoning orders and consequential proceedings against him deserve to be quashed.

Factual background

2. The Respondent, a NBFC, is engaged in advancing loans and other financial facilities. It asserts that it sanctioned and disbursed loan facilities to the following borrower companies:

(i) South Centre of Academy Pvt. Ltd. (Criminal Complaints No. 1835/2024 and 1834/2024, impugned in CRL.M.C. 8175/2025 and 8177/2025, respectively); and (ii) Sampoorn Academy Pvt. Ltd. (Criminal Complaints No. 1842/2024 and 1843/2024, impugned in CRL.M.C. 8176/2025 and 8178/2025, respectively).

3. The loan amounts were to be repaid in equated monthly instalments with interest, in terms of the respective amortisation schedules. The Respondent alleges that the cheques issued towards discharge of these liabilities were dishonoured on presentation with the remark “funds insufficient”. Statutory demand notices under Section 138 NI Act were issued on 22^nd March, 2024 and dispatched on 1^st April, 2024. As the borrower companies and the accused persons did not make payment within the statutory period of 15 days, the Respondent instituted the present complaints under Section 138 NI Act against the companies, the Petitioner, and other accused.

4. The Petitioner was a director of the borrower companies when the loan facilities were sanctioned, the documents executed, and the cheques in question issued. He is also the signatory of those cheques. His case, however is that he resigned from the Board of Directors prior to the dates o