Delhi District Court
Shahnawaz Khan vs Chet Ram Mahender Kumar on 31 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR. SAURABH KULSHRESHTHA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03: WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI.
CNR No. DLWT01-009273/2024
CR No. 489/2024
PS: Punjabi Bagh
Shahnawaz Khan v. Chet Ram Mahender Kumar & others
In the matter of:
Shahnawaz Khan
S/o Mohd. Saeed
R/o D1-24, Sector-I, Aliganj,
Lucknow, U.P. - 226024 ................. Petitioner
Versus
1. Chet Ram Mahender Kumar
Through its Proprietor Mr. Mahender Kumar Aggarwal
Address : 3991/A, Naya Bazar,
Delhi - 110006.
Mobile No. : 9599043045
2. M/s Dastoor Foods Private Limited
Through its Directors
Address : 3rd Floor, Adarsh Apartment,
1/45, Vijay Khand, Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh - 226010.
Email : [email protected]
Also at :
B-153, First Floor
Zakir Bagh Jamia Nagar,
Near Surya Hotel, Delhi - 110025.
CR No. 489/2024 Page No. 1 of 14
Shahnawaz Khan v. Chet Ram Mahender Kumar and others
3. Mohd. Anas @ Syed Mohd. Anas
Address :B-153, First Floor
Zakir Bagh Jamia Nagar,
Near Surya Hotel, Delhi - 110025.
Email: [email protected]
Also at :
C-30, Flat No. S-4, Friends Colony East,
South Delhi, Delhi - 110065.
Also at :
B-354, Second Floor, New Friends Colony,
New Delhi, Delhi - 110025.
4. Shahbaz Khan
D-1/24, Sector-1, Aliganj,
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh - 226001. .............. Respondents
Date of Institution : 24.10.2024
Date of Reserving Judgment : 15.01.2026
Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2026
Decision : Revision Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner (the accused no. 4 before the Ld. Trial Court) against the summoning order dated 16.12.2023 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act-02), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby the accused no. 1 company and the accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 (including the CR No. 489/2024 Page No. 2 of 14 Shahnawaz Khan v. Chet Ram Mahender Kumar and others present petitioner/ accused no. 4) were summoned for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in CC No. 3656/2023.
2. The facts leading to the present petition are that a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had been filed by the respondent no. 1/ complainant against the accused company namely Dastoor Food Private Limited (accused no. 1) and its directors with respect to cheque bearing no. 446058 dated 05.05.2023, which was issued by the accused no. 1 company in favour of the respondent no. 1/ complainant. However, the said cheque was dishonoured on presentation vide memos dated 08.05.2023 and 04.08.2023 with the remarks "payment stopped by drawer". The accused persons failed to make the payment of the amount due against the said cheque despite service of legal notice dated 19.08.2023.
3. The Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 16.12.2023 summoned the accused no. 1 company and its directors, namely, the accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 including the present petitioner/ accused no. 4 for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. By way of the present revision petition, the petitioner/ accused no. 4 has assailed the summoning order dated 16.12.2023.
5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/ accused no. 4 has contended that the accused no. 4 was nominally inducted as an Additional Director in the accused no. 1 company as a stop gap arrangement and the cheque CR No. 489/2024 Page No. 3 of 14 Shahnawaz Khan v. Chet Ram Mahender Kumar and others in question has not been signed by the present petitioner. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has primarily contended that the petitioner/ accused no. 4 had resigned as Additional Director of the accused no. 1 company on 01.05.2023 and Form DIR 11 has been placed on record in this respect. He has further submitted that copy of the resignation letter dated 01.05.2023, copy of the minutes of meeting of the Board of Directors and copy of the acknowledgment of the resignation letter dated 01.05.2023 have also been placed on record. He has further submitted that subsequently the accused no. 1 company also submitted Form DIR 12 in respect of the resignation of the petitioner and copy of the same has also been placed on record. He has further submitted that printout from the website of MCA has also been placed on record which shows the cessation date qua the petitioner/ accused no. 4 as Additional Director of accused no. 1 company as 01.05.2023. He has further argued that the cheque forming the basis of the present case is dated 05.05.2023 and the same was dishonoured subsequently and therefore the petitioner/ accused no. 4 cannot be held liable for the offence, if any, in the present case. He has further contended that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner and his specific role in the company has not been mentioned and there is nothing on record to establish that he was in charge of, and was responsible to the accused no. 1 company for the conduct of the business of the company at the time when the offence was committed. The petitioner/ accused no. 4 has accordingly prayed for setting aside of the summoning order 16.12.2023 and dismissal of the complaint qua him.
CR No. 489/2024 Page No. 4 of 14Shahnawaz Khan v. Chet Ram Mahender Kumar and others
6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 1/ complainant has argued that it has been categorically alleged in the complaint that the accused no. 2 to 4 (including the present petitioner) are the Directors/ Key Managerial Persons of the accused no. 1 company and are the day to day dealing persons of the company and all of them were involved in the underlying transaction. He has therefore contended that by virtue of the provisions of section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the petitioner/ accused no. 4 is prima facie vicariously liable for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act committed by the accused no. 1 company. He has further argued that the issue with respect the resignation of the petitioner from the accused no. 1 company on 01.05.2023 can only be decided after trial. He has further pointed out that the Form DIR 11 was filed by the petitioner/ accused no. 4 only on 08.02.2024 and Form DIR 12 has been belatedly filed by the accused no. 1 company in respect of his purported resignation on 12.12.2025. He has further contended that the copies of the resignation letter dated 01.05.2023, the minutes of meeting of the Board of Directors and the acknowledgment of the resignation letter dated 01.05.2023 are all ante-dated documents which have been fabricated at a later date only to avoid liability in the present case. He has accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.
7. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/ accused no. 4 as well as the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 1/ complainant and CR No. 489/2024 Page No. 5 of 14 Shahnawaz Khan v. Chet Ram Mahender Kumar and others have given due consideration to their rival contentions and have perused the record.
8. The primary ground agitated in the present petition is that the petitioner/ accused no. 4 had resigned as the Additional Director of the accused no. 1 company on 01.05.2023, while the cheque forming the substratum of the present case was issued only on 05.05.2023. Copies of the resignation letter dated 01.05.2023 of the petitioner, the minutes of meeting of the Board of Directors and the acknowledgment of the resignation letter dated 01.05.2023 and Form DIR 11 have been placed on record. Subsequently the accused no. 1 company also submitted Form DIR 12 in respect of the resignation of the petitioner (dated 01.05.2023) and the same has also been placed on record. Printout from the website of MCA has also been placed on record which shows the cessation date qua the petitioner/ accused no. 4 as Additional Director of accused no. 1 company as 01.05.2023.
9. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/ accused no. 4 has further argued that under law the resignation of a director, does not require acceptance by the Board of Directors and the resignation is effective from the date on which it is tendered. He has further argued that the filing of Form DIR 11 by the resigning director is optional in terms of section 168(1) of the Companies Act 2013 and the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014. He has further submitted that a director who has resigned cannot ensure timely filing of Form DIR 12 by the company. He has further contended that CR No. 489/2024 Page No. 6 of 14 Shahnawaz Khan v. Chet Ram Mahender Kumar and others even otherwise belated filing of the aforesaid form DIR 12 by the company or Form DIR 11 by the resigning director does not invalidate the resignation and only exposes the company to such penalty as may be applicable. He has placed reliance on the judgments titled as Renuka Ramnath v. Yes Bank Ltd, 2012 DCC OnLine Mad 2668 and Mother Care India Limited v. Tamaswapy P. Aiyar, ILR 2004 Kar 1081.
10. There is no dispute about the aforesaid legal proposition where the facts are not disputed. However, the present case is at the initial stage where the trial has not even commenced and the basic underlying facts and the supporting documents have been strongly disputed by the respondent no. 1 / complainant. The respondent no. 1/ complainant has disputed the factum of resignation of the petitioner/ accused no. 4 from the accused no. 1 company on 01.05.2023 and the documents filed in support of the same. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 1/ complainant has pointed out that the Form DIR 11 was filed by the petitioner/ accused no. 4 only on 08.02.2024 and Form DIR 12 has been filed by the accused no. 1 company in respect of his purported resignation belatedly on 12.12.2025. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 1/ complainant has further contended that the copies of the resignation letter dated 01.05.2023, the minutes of meeting of the Board of Directors and the acknowledgment of the resignation letter dated 01.05.2023 are all ante-dated documents which have been fabricated at a later date only to avoid liability in the present case.
CR No. 489/2024 Page No. 7 of 14Shahnawaz Khan v. Chet Ram Mahender Kumar and others
11. Thus under the given circumstances, the belated filing of Form DIR 11 on 08.02.2024 by the petitioner and the further belated filing of Form DIR 12 on 12.12.2025 by the accused no. 1 company assumes significance especially keeping in mind that the cheque in question was issued on 05.05.2023, the same was dishonoured on 04.08.2023 and the statutory legal notice was issued on 19.08.2023. The resignation letter dated 01.05.2023, the minutes of meeting of the Board of Directors and the acknowledgment of the resignation letter dated 01.05.2023 are all in-house documents of the accused no. 1 company and thus there is a possibility that the same can be ante-dated by the petitioner and the accused no. 1 company. Had the Forms DIR 11 and DIR 12 been immediately filed after the purported resignation letter dated 01.05.2023, the same would have lent credence to the fact that the petitioner had in fact resigned on 01.05.2025. However, the fact that the forms DIR 11 and DIR 12 have been filed much after the dishonour of the cheque in question/ issuance of the statutory legal notice raises a suspicion regarding the resignation dated 01.05.2023. This issue therefore cannot be conclusively decided unless evidence is led and the trial is concluded.
12. Even the fact that on the website of MCA the cessation date qua the petitioner/ accused no. 4 as Additional Director of accused no. 1 company is reflected as 01.05.2023 is of no consequence as the MCA may have acted and made such an entry only on the basis of the Form DIR 11 filed on 08.02.2024, without knowledge of the fact that during CR No. 489/2024 Page No. 8 of 14 Shahnawaz Khan v. Chet Ram Mahender Kumar and others the period from 01.05.2023 to 08.02.2024 an offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been committed for which the petitioner/ director may incur liability under section 141 of the said Act.
13. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that no conclusive finding on the issue that the petitioner/ accused no. 4 had in fact resigned from the accused no. 1 company on 01.05.2023 can be returned at this stage and the same is a matter of trial. Accordingly, the summoning order dated 16.12.2023 cannot be set aside on this ground in the present revision petition.
14. Now let us consider the second limb of the argument, that the allegations levelled in the complaint are not sufficient to fasten vicarious liability upon the petitioner/ accused no. 4 in as much as his role in the company has not been specifically described.
15. The scope of interference in revision proceedings is extremely limited and the same has been enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a number of judgments. In the judgment titled as Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Galabrao Phalke as reported in (2015) 3 SCC123, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed:
"....14....Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of CR No. 489/2024 Page No. 9 of 14 Shahnawaz Khan v. Chet Ram Mahender Kumar and others records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction....."
16. In the judgment titled as Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander reported as (2012) 9 SCC 460, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed:
"..........8. Before examining the merits of the present case, we must advert to the discussion as to the ambit and scope of the power which the courts including the High Court can exercise under Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a CR No. 489/2024 Page No. 10 of 14 Shahnawaz Khan v. Chet Ram Mahender Kumar and others patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well- founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.
9. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated......"
17. In the judgment titled as Chandra Babu v. State, reported as (2015) 8 SCC 774, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed:
CR No. 489/2024 Page No. 11 of 14 Shahnawaz Khan v. Chet Ram Mahender Kumar and others "11. ...It is well settled in law that inherent as well as revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously. Normally, a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the Court....."
18. In the judgment titled as Taron Mohan v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 312, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed:
"......9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 CrPC gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence......."
19. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is alleged in the complaint that the accused no. 2 to 4 (including the present petitioner) CR No. 489/2024 Page No. 12 of 14 Shahnawaz Khan v. Chet Ram Mahender Kumar and others are the Directors/ Key Managerial Persons of the accused no. 1 company and are the day to day dealing persons of the company. It is further alleged that the accused no. 1 company through the the accused no. 2 to 4 (including the present petitioner) had approached the complainant and expressed their desire to have business dealings with him. It is further alleged that the accused no. 1 company through the accused no. 2 to 4 (including the present petitioner) had placed orders at different points of time and used to make part payments, etc.
20. Thus the petitioner has not only been alleged to be a director/ Key Managerial Person in the accused no. 1 company but he has also been alleged to be the day to day dealing person of the accused no. 1 company and it has also been specifically alleged that he was also involved in the underlying transactions, dealings and placing of orders with the complainant. Whether or not these allegations are actually true , cannot be decided at this stage without trial. Furthermore, as per the MCA record which has been filed, the petitioner/ accused no. 4 has been shown as an additional director under the category of 'Promotor' and the fact he was one of the promoter directors, prima facie shows that he was was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the accused no. 1 company. Thus, in case anything to the contrary is to be established, that would require evidence and therefore the issue cannot be decided unless the trial is concluded.
21. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and bearing in mind the legal position discussed herein-above, there does not CR No. 489/2024 Page No. 13 of 14 Shahnawaz Khan v. Chet Ram Mahender Kumar and others appear to be any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court and I am of the opinion that no ground is made out for interfering with the impugned summoning order dated 16.12.2023 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act-02), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi qua the present petitioner/ accused no.
4. The revision petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.
Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH KULSHRESHTHA
(Pronounced in the open court KULSHRESHTHA Date: 2026.01.31 16:55:15
+0530
on 31.01.2025).
(Dr. Saurabh Kulshreshtha)
Additional Sessions Judge-03 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CR No. 489/2024 Page No. 14 of 14
Shahnawaz Khan v. Chet Ram Mahender Kumar and others