SACHDEVA LAND AND FINANCE PVT LTD v. MS CHAHAT JAIN

Judgment

1. The present petitions filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 impugn a common order dated 28th November, 20241 passed in batch of criminal revisions petitions. By the said order, the 1 “the impugned order” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Sapna Sethi Signing Date:05.04.2025 21:02:05 CRL.M.C. 1957/2025 & other connected matters Page 1 of 13 Revisional Court has set aside separate summoning orders2 issued by the

Trial Court/JMFC/NI Act/Digital Court-01, North Rohini, Delhi, against the Respondent in five separate complaints.

2. The present proceedings stem from complaints instituted by the Petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Act, 18813 in respect of cheques issued by Insion Private Limited (Accused No. 1 in the complaint). The Petitioner alleges that they had extended a loan of INR 1.50 crores to Insion Private Limited, and cheques were issued by the accused company towards repayment of the said amount. Upon dishonour of the cheques on presentation, the Petitioner initiated proceedings under the NI Act, arraying the Respondent, a former director of the company, as Accused No. 3. Upon service of summons, the Respondent preferred criminal revision petitions, which culminated in the passing of the impugned order by the Revisional Court.

3. Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, counsel for the Petitioner, argues that although Respondent had resigned from the post of director of Insion Private Limited (Accused No. 1) on 5th January, 2023, prior to the date of the alleged transaction dated 14th March, 2023 and 28th March, 2023, nonetheless, she remains liable under Section 141 of the NI Act. He submits that the complaints contain specific averments attributing continued involvement and responsibility to the Respondent in the affairs of the company even after 2 dated 5th July, 2024 in CRL.M.C. 1957/2025; 21st October, 2023 in CRL.M.C. 1958/2025; 4th May, 2024 in CRL.M.C. 1959/2025; 5th July, 2024 in CRL.M.C. 1960/2025 and 18th July, 2024 in CRL.M.C. 3 “the NI Act” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Sapna Sethi Signing Date:05.04.2025 21:02:05 CRL.M.C. 1957/2025 & other connected matters Page 2 of 13 her resignation. The Revisional Court, disregarded these material assertions and erroneously interfered with the summoning orders.

4. In support of the afore-noted contentions, Mr. Rohatgi urges the following grounds for quashing the impugned order:

4.1. The Revisional Court failed to apply the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court in multiple judgments, including S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy v. Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan4 and S.M.S Pharmaceutical Limited v. Neeta Bhalla5 wherein it has been clearly held that for a director to be held vicariously liable under Section 141 of the NI Act, the complaint must contain specific averments indicating that such person was in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the company’s business at the relevant time. In the present case, the complaints filed by the Petitioner contain express assertions regarding the Respondent’s involvement in the affairs of the company, which the Revisional Court has disregarded without proper analysis.

4.2. The Revisional Court overlooked the fact that the accused persons, including the Respondent, were allegedly engaged in a well-orchestrated conspiracy to defraud the Petitioner. The Respondent is the real sister of the co-accused, and her familial ties, coupled with the alleged concerted actions, underscore the element of collusion and reinforce her complicity.

4.3. Despite her purported resignation, the Respondent’s continued association with the accused company is evidenced by the fact that her email