$~76 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4757/2026, CRL.M.A. 19954/2026, CRL.M.A. 19955/2026 KUNDAN CHAKARBORTY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pinak Mitra, Ms Meenakshi Vimal, Mr. Akash Bhatt and Ms. Riya Sagar, Advs. versus RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED & ANR. .....Respondents Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE O R D E R % 13.07.2026 1. By virtue of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- “a. Pass an appropriate order quashing Complaint Case No. 22025/2018 titled Religare Finvest Ltd. v. Dolphin Lifecare Ltd. & Anr., pending before the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, including the order dated 20.04.2026 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. b. Pending disposal of the present Petition, stay further proceedings against the Petitioner in Complaint Case No. 22025/2018 pending before the Court of the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi; c. Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2026 at 11:41:57 2. Prima facie, it is the case of the petitioner that vide order dated 20.04.2026 the learned Trial Court has dropped the Company from the array of parties before it. It contends that in view thereof, and since the present petitioner was an erstwhile Director therein, the petitioner herein cannot be held vicariously liable. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon a judgment dated 30.07.2019 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled as Anil Khadkiwala v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.:(2019) 17 SCC 294, submits that in such circumstances as noted hereinabove, the petitioner cannot be held liable and the proceedings before the learned Trial Court in Complaint Case No.22025/2018 are liable to be quashed. 4. Upon enquiry, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, admittedly, the petitioner had already been served before the learned Trial Court long back and was also regularly participating in the proceedings therein. 5. Facts reveal that it is also an admitted position that the involved cheque bearing No.000742 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Lake Market, Kolkata-700 026 was in fact issued on 09.04.2018. Facts also reveal that the said cheque contains the signatures of the petitioner. Moreover, as per the Form DIR-11, which is a statutory document, the petitioner himself had filed the documents qua his resignation only subsequently on 05.09.2018. 6. It is also relevant to note that the respondent no.1/ complainant has also made specific assertions against the petitioner in the complaint, which, for the sake of brevity, are reproduced as under:- “8. That the accused No.1 is the Private Limited Company. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2026 at 11:41:57 The accused No.2 is the Director / Authorised Signatory of Accused No.1 and is also in charge of and responsible for conduct of day to day business/ affairs of the accused No.1 The accused No.2 for and on behalf o accused No.1 issued cheque as per details below in favour of the complaint towards the discharge of legally enforceable debt/ liability arising out of the above-mentioned loan agreement No. XSMEKOL00075131(Application ID No.661330) Cheque no. Cheque dt. Cheque Amt. (Rs.) Bank Name. 742 09/04/2018 1035500/- BANK OF BARODA xxx 11. That the accused above named failed to pay the amount of the aforesaid dishonoured cheque, despite service of notice upon them. As state above, the accused no.2 is the Director/ Authorised Signatory of accused no.1 and is also in charge of and responsible for conduct of day-to-day business/ affairs of accused no.1 and as such they are all liable to make the payment of the cheque amount.” 7. At this stage, though learned counsel for petitioner seeks to contend that all the documents pertaining to his resignation were issued prior to the issuance of the involved cheque, however, considering the nature of those internal documents, and their date of issuance, the same being a matter of trial, cannot be agitated before this Court at this stage. The petitioner cannot be allowed to call for any adjudication thereto without facing trial. 8. Thus, taking into account the aforesaid facts, circumstances, reasons and analysis, as also the established legal position cumulatively, the present petition, alongwith the pending application is dismissed. SAURABH BANERJEE, J JULY 13, 2026/bh This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2026 at 11:41:57