1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. A very short question that arises for determination in this proceeding is as to whether moratorium prohibiting institution of a proceeding as provided for in Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as Code) applies even to a criminal proceeding.

3. The facts as are necessary to be delineated are to the effect that the petitioner company instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as N.I. Act for short) bearing SCC No. 3197/2016 against the respondent no.2 company and the respondents 3 to 7 who are its Managing Director and Directors, in respect of a cheque for an amount of Rs.15,58,612/- issued by respondents 2 to 7 towards discharge of a civil liability. The learned Magistrate issued process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Being aggrieved, the respondents 2 to 7 challenged the order of issuance of process by preferring Criminal Revision No. 147/2016.

4. In the meanwhile, the respondents 2 to 7 initiated insolvency proceeding in Case No. CP/(IB No. 20/BB/2017). The National Company Law Tribunal, Benguluru passed following order :

“That this Bench hereby prohibits the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority, transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of this assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein, any action to foreclose, recovery or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial assets and enforcement of security interest Act 2002, the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor.”

In view of such an order, the respondents 2 to 7 submitted application (Exh.20) in the Criminal Revision and requested to keep the revision in abeyance/stayed till further order was passed in the insolvency proceeding.

5. The petitioner opposed that application by its Say (Exh.23) inter alia on the ground that in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Indorama Synthetics India Limited Nagpur V/s State of Maharashtra and others; 2016 (4) Mh.L.J.249 while considering a similar provision contained in Sub Section 1 of Section 446 of the Companies Act it has interpreted the words 'Suit or other proceeding' contained in that Section as not to include a criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments allowed the application Exh.20 filed by the respondents 2 to 7 and directed the revision to be kept in abeyance till further order was passed in the insolvency proceeding. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. The learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the provision contained in Section 14 of the Code does not specifically prohibit a criminal proceeding being prosecuted against the company which has applied for insolvency under Section 10 of that Code. The National Company Law Tribunal, pursuant to this provision has prohibited institution or continuation of any proceeding, however even that order does not specifically prohibit continuation of a criminal proceeding. The decision in Indorama (supra) though interprets the provision of Sub Section 1 of Section 446 of the Companies Act, the reasons and the analogy as applied therein for arriving at a conclusion that that provision does not debar continuation of a criminal proceeding clearly settles the law and can be followed even