LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Saroj Pandey v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 324Decided 7 Apr 2026
Crl.A. No.-001793-001793 - 2026
Justice Sanjay Karol · Justice Augustine George Masih · Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Background

The appellant, a Director of Projtech Engineering Private Limited, was summoned along with the company in a cheque-bounce complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after three company cheques totaling Rs. 50 lakhs were dishonoured. Her revision petition against the summoning order was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that, as a signatory to a Board Resolution, she was involved in the company's day-to-day management. The Delhi High Court then declined to quash the summons under its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, holding that having already pursued an unsuccessful revision on the same grounds, her Section 482 petition was confined to a narrower jurisdiction. She appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reasoning, that a Section 482 CrPC petition is barred or narrowly circumscribed merely because a revision petition on the same grounds had already been dismissed, was legally incorrect, relying on the three-judge bench decision in Krishnan v. Krishnaveni and later precedents (Dhariwal Tobacco Products, Prabhu Chawla) which establish that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 is a separate, statutorily-saved power that survives even where revisional remedies are barred or already exhausted. Applying this, and having reviewed whether the appellant was genuinely shown to be in charge of the company's day-to-day affairs, the Court found fault with the High Court's approach and set aside its judgment. The proceedings against the appellant were accordingly quashed, with the Court clarifying that this ruling concerned only her case and would not affect the trial of the co-accused.

Lesson Learnt

Filing (and losing) a criminal revision petition does not by itself bar a person from separately invoking the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings: the two remedies are legally distinct. Directors of a company are not automatically liable under the NI Act merely for signing a board resolution; courts must specifically examine whether they were actually in charge of and responsible for the company's day-to-day business.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case