Allowed

Swatantra Singh v. Monika Bhardwaj and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Jul 2026CRM-M/5707/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed summoning orders issued against Independent Directors in cheque bounce cases, relying on a Supreme Court ruling that specific allegations of direct involvement are essential for liability under Section 141 of the NI Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned summoning orders and complaint proceedings were quashed against the petitioners (Independent Directors).

Swatantra Singh Vs Monika Bhardwaj and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRM-M-5707-2022 (O&M) & connected cases

¶2

-:1:-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

(136 Twelve Cases)
1.	CRM-M-5707-2022 (O&M)
SWATANTRA SINGH
	… Petitioner
Versus
MONIKA BHARDWAJ AND ANOTHER	... Respondents
2.	CRM-M-5746-2022 (O&M)
SWATANTRA SINGH	… Petitioner
Versus
VIKAS BHARDWAJ AND ANR.	... Respondents
3.	CRM-M-5776-2022 (O&M)
SWATANTRA SINGH Versus	… Petitioner
MONIKA BHARDWAJ AND ANOTHER	... Respondents
4.	CRM-M-5779-2022 (O&M)
SWATANTRA SINGH
	… Petitioner
Versus
VIKAS BHARDWAJ AND ANOTHER	... Respondents
5.	CRM-M-5784-2022 (O&M)
SWATANTRA SINGH	… Petitioner

¶5

GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.16 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶6

CRM-M-5707-2022 (O&M) & connected cases

¶7

-:2:-

¶8

Versus MONIKA BHARDWAJ AND ANR	... Respondents
6.	CRM-M-5786-2022 (O&M)
SWATANTRA SINGH
	… Petitioner
Versus
VIKAS BHARDWAJ AND ANOTHER	... Respondents
7.	CRM-M-57728-2023 (O&M)
MEWA SINGH
Versus	… Petitioner
VIKAS BHARDWAJ AND ANR	... Respondents
8.	CRM-M-57493-2023 (O&M)
MEWA SINGH
	… Petitioner
Versus
MONIKA BHARDWAJ AND ANOTHER	... Respondents
9.	CRM-M-57517-2023 (O&M)
MEWA SINGH	… Petitioner
Versus
VIKAS BHARDWAJ AND ANR	... Respondents
10.	CRM-M-57733-2023 (O&M)
MEWA SINGH
Versus	… Petitioner

¶9

GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.16 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶10

CRM-M-5707-2022 (O&M) & connected cases -:3:- VIKAS BHARDWAJ AND ANR ... Respondents 11. CRM-M-57636-2023 (O&M) MEWA SINGH … Petitioner Versus MONIKA BHARDWAJ AND ANOTHER ... Respondents 12. CRM-M-57644-2023 (O&M) MEWA SINGH … Petitioner Versus MONIKA BHARDWAJ AND ANOTHER ... Respondents

¶11

Date of Decision:15.07.2026

¶12

-.-

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

¶14

Present:Mr. Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate and Mr. Yuwan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-57493-2023, CRM-M-57517-2023, CRM-M-57636-2023, CRM-M-57644-2023, CRM-M-57728-2023 and CRM-M-57733-2023 .

¶15

Mr. Akshay Jindal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tushar Kush, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-5707-2022 . Mr. K.S. Dhanora, Advocate and Ms. Kritika Mandhan, Advocate for respondent No.1-Complainant in all the cases .

¶16

-.-

¶17

GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.16 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-5707-2022 (O&M) & connected cases

¶19

-:4:-

¶20

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J . (Oral)

¶21

By way of this common order, this Court proposes to dispose of the above-captioned revision petitions, as all the petitions arise out of identical questions of fact and law, emanate from similar complaints instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, involve substantially similar summoning orders, and raise a common issue requiring authoritative adjudication. Since the controversy involved in all the petitions is common, they are being decided together to avoid conflicting decisions and in the interest of judicial propriety and consistency.

¶22

The principal question which arises for consideration in the present batch of revision petitions is whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, read with Section 141 thereof, is maintainable against an Independent/Non-Executive Director of a company in the absence of specific and substantive averments demonstrating that such Director was, at the relevant point of time, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day business and affairs of the company. The petitioners have assailed the impugned summoning orders primarily on the ground that they were merely Independent Directors having no role whatsoever in the operational management or financial affairs of the company and, therefore, their prosecution solely on account of their designation is legally unsustainable. 3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-complainant, after addressing the Court at some

¶23

GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.16 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRM-M-5707-2022 (O&M) & connected cases

¶25

-:5:-

¶26

length, fairly conceded that the controversy involved in the present petitions stands squarely covered by the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S. Mehta v. M/s Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd., 2025 (4) SCR 1 , wherein it has been categorically held that non-executive directors cannot be held vicariously liable under Section 141 of NI Act for dishonoured cheques unless specific allegations establish their direct involvement in the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has unequivocally held that criminal prosecution against such Directors can be sustained only where the complaint contains specific, clear and unambiguous allegations establishing their direct and active role in the conduct of the business of the company and demonstrating that they were in charge of and responsible for its day-to-day affairs at the relevant time when the offence was allegedly committed. In the absence of such foundational pleadings and supporting material, continuation of criminal proceedings against Independent Directors would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶27

Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, examined the material available on record, and in view of the law authoritatively declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S. Mehta v. M/s Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. (supra) , this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned summoning orders, insofar as they relate to the present petitioners, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. A careful perusal of the complaints reveals that there are no specific averments or material particulars indicating that the petitioners

¶28

GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.16 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CRM-M-5707-2022 (O&M) & connected cases

¶30

-:6:-

¶31

were in charge of or responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day affairs of the company at the relevant time. Their arraignment appears to be founded solely upon the designation held by them as Independent/NonExecutive Directors, which, by itself, is wholly insufficient to attract vicarious criminal liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently, permitting the criminal prosecution to continue against the petitioners would amount to an unwarranted abuse of the process of the Court.

¶32

4.1. Accordingly, all the revision petitions are allowed . The complaint, impugned summoning orders, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the present petitioners only. It is, however, clarified that the complaint proceedings shall continue against the remaining accused, if any, strictly in accordance with law and shall remain uninfluenced by any observation made herein. 5. A photocopy of this order shall be placed on the files of all the connected revision petitions for ready reference and necessary compliance. 6. In view of the fact that the principal controversy stands finally adjudicated by this common order, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present revision petitions shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are required to be passed in respect thereof.

¶33

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 15.07.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No

¶34

GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.16 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Swatantra Singh v. Monika Bhardwaj and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swatantra Singh v. Monika Bhardwaj and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sadab Khan Vs State of Haryana

Kulwinder Singh Alias Bittu Vs State of Punjab

Ajay Singh Rathi Vs State of Punjab

Tarlok Singh@Billa Vs State of Punjab

Swatantra Singh Vs Vikas Bhardwaj and Another

Swatantra Singh Vs Monika Bhardwaj and Anr.