Specific allegations against a director raised triable issues, precluding quashing of the criminal proceedings.

The petitioner, a director and 50% shareholder of Generis Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd., sought under Section 482 CrPC to quash the charge sheet and cognizance order in C.C. No. 417/2021, in which she was accused No. 6 of offences under Sections 406, 418, 420, 468, 471, 120B, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC.

The prosecution alleged that the company’s promoters induced investors to invest money by promising returns and failed to repay them.

The petitioner argued that the allegations and evidence principally concerned accused No. 2, the company’s CEO, and that no specific role or overt act was attributed to her.

She also sought under Article 226 and Section 528 BNSS to quash an Enforcement Directorate summons dated 19 February 2026 and the consequent further investigation in ECIR/BGZO/15/2023, contending that the predicate-offence allegations did not implicate her.

The Court considered the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process, including its availability after filing of a charge sheet, and the principle that a director is not automatically criminally liable for a company’s acts solely by virtue of office; specific allegations or material connecting the director to the offence are relevant.

It considered Sections 406, 418, 420, 468, 471, 120B, 504 and 506 IPC and the ingredients of those offences, as well as Article 226 and Section 528 BNSS in relation to the writ petition.

The Court referred to Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat and Sharad Kumar Sanghi v. Sangita Rani on the limits of vicarious liability; Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi) on the availability of Section 482 relief after a charge sheet; and other cited authorities concerning the ingredients of the alleged offences.

The Court held that the allegations, the petitioner’s undisputed 50% shareholding, her position as a director, the company’s transactions, and the credit of some funds to her account raised factual questions that could not be resolved at the quashing stage.

It considered the petitioner’s contention that accused No. 2 alone received or used the investment funds, but concluded that the alleged arrangements, authorization of the CEO, and the circumstances surrounding the transactions required trial.

The Court likewise left the allegations relating to forgery, insult and intimidation for consideration at trial, and rejected the challenge to cognizance, finding that the Trial Court had considered the charge-sheet material.

Because the predicate-offence proceedings were not quashed, the Court found no basis to grant the connected writ relief against the ED summons and investigation.

It consequently dismissed W.P. No. 7336/2026, holding that the requested relief against the Enforcement Directorate proceedings did not survive in light of the predicate-offence proceedings remaining in place.