New Delhi, December 25, 2025: The Delhi High Court has declined to quash criminal proceedings against former director Dinesh Kumar Pandey in a bundle of cheque bounce cases filed by M/s Singh Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Justice Sanjeev Narula’s judgment, reserved earlier this month and pronounced on Christmas Day, keeps Pandey within the trial net, saying the material he relied on is “not unimpeachable” at this stage.
Background
Pandey, a former director of two private companies that had taken loans from the NBFC, argued that he resigned before the cheques bounced. Therefore, he shouldn’t be dragged into a criminal trial under Section 138 of the NI Act (cheque dishonour) and Section 141 (vicarious liability of directors).
He produced Form DIR-12, MCA portal records, and resignation letters to show he had stepped down in April 2023 and January 2024, claiming the offence was completed only later when the cheques were dishonoured in March 2024.
But the complainant NBFC didn’t buy it. They said the timing looked “strategic,” pointing out that defaults had already started and the cheques had his signature. It sounded like the classic “I left before the fire started” vs “You lit the match” courtroom clash.
Court’s Observations
The court didn’t dismiss Pandey’s story outright, but it wasn’t convinced enough to end the prosecution either. Instead, it emphasised that deciding responsibility under Section 141 isn’t a mathematical formula-it’s fact-heavy.
“Accepting the plea at this stage would require factual adjudication on contested issues,” the bench observed, signalling that this wasn’t the moment to resolve a disputed resignation.
Justice Narula leaned on a straightforward principle: if the documents that are supposed to prove innocence are themselves disputed, the High Court won’t use its extraordinary powers to hit the brakes.
Another key line from the order summarised the stance:
“The record does not place the case in the narrow category warranting quashing.”
Also, because Pandey had signed the cheques, the judge held that his role couldn’t be brushed aside as symbolic. Signatory status, even without daily control, opens the door to trial-level scrutiny.
Read also:- Redefining Aravallis: Supreme Court Steps In, But Will Monday’s Hearing Freeze Mining Across the Region?
Decision
Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the petitions and told Pandey to fight it out in trial. Nothing more, nothing less.
“The petitions are dismissed… The Petitioner will remain at liberty to demonstrate, before the Trial Court, that he genuinely stepped out of management.”
So the final takeaway is simple: this wasn’t a clean exit. It’s more like the door stays half-open until a trial tests the facts.
The article ends here as the court’s order ends with dismissal and directions for the trial to proceed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Dinesh Kumar Pandey v. M/s Singh Finlease Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (and connected matters)
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 8175/2025, 8176/2025, 8177/2025 & 8178/2025
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Sumit Chauhan, Mr. Sushant Kumar, Advocates.
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Virat K. Anand, Mr. Kumar Shashank, Mr. Harish Nadda, Mr. Vikalp Singh, Ms. Srishty Kaul, Ms. Swati Kwatra, Advocates.
