Saroj Pandey v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2026
The judgment reinforces the principle that criminal liability cannot be imposed vicariously without strict compliance with statutory requirements.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
13 April 2026
Judges
Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Augustine George Masih
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
A complaint was filed under the Negotiable Instruments Act due to dishonour of three cheques issued by a company for payment related to iron and steel.
-
The cheques were dishonoured on grounds of signature mismatch and alterations.
-
A legal notice was issued, followed by summons against the company and its directors.
-
The appellant, a director of the company, challenged the summoning order.
-
The revisional court and High Court refused to quash proceedings, reasoning that her signing of a Board Resolution indicated involvement in day-to-day affairs.
-
The appellant approached the Supreme Court seeking quashing of criminal proceedings.
Issues
-
Whether mere directorship or signing of a Board Resolution is sufficient to establish liability under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?
-
Whether specific averments regarding a director’s role in day-to-day business are necessary to prosecute under the Negotiable Instruments Act?
-
Whether a petition under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable after dismissal of a revision petition on similar grounds?
Held
-
Mere directorship or signing a Board Resolution is insufficient for prosecution under Section 138 NI Act.
-
Specific allegations of responsibility in day-to-day affairs are mandatory.
-
Proceedings against the appellant were quashed.
-
Section 482 CrPC remains available despite prior revision proceedings.
Analysis
-
The judgment reinforces the principle that criminal liability cannot be imposed vicariously without strict compliance with statutory requirements.
-
It strengthens safeguards for independent and non-executive directors, preventing misuse of cheque dishonour provisions.
-
The Court maintained consistency with prior precedents like:
-
N. Vijay Kumar v. Vishwanath Rao N.
-
K.S. Mehta v. Morgan Securities & Credits (P) Ltd
-
Hitesh Verma v. Health Care at Home (India) (P) Ltd
-
-
It clarifies the distinction between policy-level participation and operational control.
-
The ruling prevents mechanical prosecution of directors and promotes fair criminal jurisprudence.
-
It also reaffirms the wide scope of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.