R.K. ARORA Vs. DEVINDER SINGH BABLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of impugned order dtd. 20/9/2022 (Annexure P-6) in complaint bearing No. NACT-4777 of 2021 dtd. 2/6/2021 titled as "Devinder Singh Babla Vs. M/s Supertech Ltd. And others" under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the NI Act') (Annexure P-4) whereby non-bailable warrants have been issued against the petitioner and further staying the impugned complaint (Annexure P-4) and summoning order dtd. 2/6/2021 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner was the Chairman of M/s Supertech Ltd., which is now undergoing a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) before the National Company Law Tribunal (for short, 'NCLT'), New Delhi Bench and an interim resolution professional has already been appointed. Learned counsel has also referred to the order dtd. 25/3/2022 passed by NCLT (Annexure P-1). He submits that by virtue of interim moratorium applied by the said order, the independent recovery as well as criminal proceedings cannot continue against the Directors by virtue of provisions of Ss. 14 and 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'IBC').

(3.) Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been summoned as an accused under Sec. 138 of the NI Act. He contends that since the petitioner is no longer at the helm of affairs of the company, the amount due, if any cannot be honoured in the light of the interim moratorium order of the NCLT, and thus the petitioner cannot be summoned under Sec. 138 of the NI Act. Learned counsel vehemently submits that respondent No.1 cannot be allowed to avail two separate remedies for the same cause of action. Hence, the proceedings under Sec. 138 of the NI Act are liable to be quashed.