In Sangita Arora v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr., CRL.M.C. 4722-4724/2026 (decided 8 September 2026), Justice Madhu Jain of the High Court of Delhi dismissed three petitions seeking quashing of proceedings arising from FIR No. 105/2020 against Supertech Limited and persons associated with its management. Homebuyers in a project marketed as "Hill Town" alleged they were induced to purchase flats under a subvention scheme — the company promising to pay pre-EMIs until possession — after which the payments stopped and the project was never delivered, with losses to roughly 37 homebuyers put at Rs. 22.80 crores. The petitioners argued they were being prosecuted for their designations. The Court held the material showed more: shareholding, board participation and bank signatory authority. The petitions failed, and the decision refines the line between designation-based and role-based criminal exposure of directors.
The allegations
FIR No. 105/2020 collected the grievances of approximately 37 homebuyers of the "Hill Town" project. The inducement alleged was the subvention structure: purchase now, and the company pays your pre-EMI interest until possession is delivered. The company allegedly discontinued the pre-EMI payments and failed to complete the project, leaving buyers with loans, without homes, and with quantified losses of about Rs. 22.80 crores. The proceedings invoked Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the IPC — criminal breach of trust, cheating and conspiracy — against persons associated with the company's management, three of whom sought quashing under Section 528 of the BNSS 2023.
The designation defence — and its limits
The petitions rested on the familiar proposition that directors cannot be prosecuted merely for holding office. Justice Madhu Jain accepted the proposition and rejected its application:
"The law does not recognise automatic criminal liability merely on account of a person's designation as a Director... However, the above principle cannot be read to mean that every Director must necessarily be discharged merely by asserting that he or she had no role in the day-to-day affairs of the company."
The prosecution's material connected the petitioners to the company's decision-making: a 34% shareholding, participation in the board, and authority as signatory over bank accounts. Whether that involvement amounts to the dishonest inducement the offence requires is a trial question; at the threshold, the material sufficed to continue the proceedings.
The two poles of director exposure
What stalled-project criminal litigation looks like now
Delhi's courts continue to process the criminal residue of the NCR's stalled housing projects. The pattern visible in this decision is consistent with the broader case law: complaints that plead a concrete inducement (subvention promises, assured returns, delivery timelines) supported by documents survive quashing; the individual accused are then sorted by role, with the paper trail — board minutes, signatory mandates, shareholding — doing the sorting. For homebuyers, the criminal case is leverage and accountability, but rarely restitution; recovery still runs primarily through consumer fora, RERA and insolvency processes, in parallel.
Practice notes
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a subvention scheme and why do these disputes turn criminal?
In a subvention purchase, the buyer pays a booking amount, the bank disburses the loan to the builder, and the builder pays the buyer's pre-EMI interest until possession. When the builder stops paying and the project stalls, buyers are left servicing loans for undelivered flats. Where the inducement itself is alleged to be dishonest — promises made without intention or ability to perform — complaints under the cheating provisions follow alongside civil and consumer remedies.
Can directors be prosecuted for a company's cheating?
The IPC contains no general vicarious liability for cheating, so a director's prosecution must rest on the director's own role in the alleged deception. Designation alone is insufficient — but material showing participation in management decisions, signatory authority over relevant accounts, or personal involvement in the inducement can sustain the prosecution.
What did the Delhi High Court hold about the petitioners' roles?
The Court held that criminal liability does not attach automatically to a designation, but that the principle cannot be inverted into automatic discharge either. The prosecution had placed material indicating active involvement — including 34% shareholding, board participation and bank account signatory authority — and at the quashing stage that material must be taken at face value.
Do pending insolvency or consumer proceedings against a builder bar the criminal case?
No. Criminal proceedings for cheating operate independently of consumer complaints, RERA proceedings or corporate insolvency. Parallel remedies are the norm in stalled-project disputes, each addressing a different aspect of the wrong.