The imposition of moratorium under Sec. 14 of the I.B. Code applies to the corporate debtor, while the natural persons mentioned in Sec. 141 of the N.I. Act continue to be statutorily liable.

JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Advocates for the parties.

2. In this application made under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Cr.P.C.") the applicants, who are accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 respectively in a complaint case, have prayed for quashing the Summary Criminal Complaint Case No.1213/2019 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hinganghat, District Wardha.

3. The facts giving rise to this application are as follows: The applicant Nos.1 to 3 are the accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 respectfully in the Criminal Complaint case (hereinafter referred to as "accused Nos.2, 3 and 4"). The Respondent is the complainant (hereinafter referred to as "complainant"). The complainant filed the complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the N.I. Act"). In the said complaint, the accused No.1/ CLC Industries Ltd. is a company. The accused Nos.2 to 7 are the Directors of the said company, in their various capacities. The accused Nos.8 and 9 are the authorized signatories to the cheque in question. It is stated that the complainant supplied on credit paper cones to the accused No.1 at its Buttibori plant from time to time. The amount of Rs.25,00,000.00 (Rs. Twenty Five Lacs Only) was due and payable by the company. In order to clear the out standing dues the accused Nos.8 and 9, in their capacity as authorized signatories of the company issued a cheque for Rs.25,00,000.00 dtd. 26/12/2018 bearing No.43781 to the complainant. The cheque was presented for encashment through the bank of the complainant. The cheque was dishonoured for the reason, "Drawers Signature Differs". The complainant sent demand notice. Notice was replied but, the amount of cheque was not paid. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act. Learned Magistrate recorded verification statement of the deponent on behalf of the firm. On the basis of the material on record, learned Magistrate issued process against accused for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act.

4. The accused Nos.8 and 9 only appeared before the learned Magistrate pursuant to the service of notice. Remaining accused did not appear before the learned Magistrate. The accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 have filed this application for quashing the criminal complaint against them. The accused Nos.5, 6 and 7 have not filed any proceeding either challenging the order of issuance of process or quashing the criminal complaint.

5. In this application, the main ground in support of prayer is that all the Directors have been made an accused in the criminal case without any specific averments against each of them. Vague and bald statements have been made in the complaint against the accused Nos.2 to 7, that they were in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of accused No.1/Company. It is stated that on the basis of such general averments, the complaint against the accused Nos.1 to 3 cannot be prosecuted. It is stated that learned Judicial Magistrate before issuance of process has not taken this aspect into consideration. It is further stated that the accused No.1/Company is in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and a Resolution Professional has already been appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (for short "the NCLT, New Delhi) by order dtd. 03/01/2020. The moratorium has been imposed viz-a-viz the accused No.1/Company, a Corporate Debtor in terms of Sec. 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred as "IB Code").

6. As far as the accused No.2 is concerned, it is stated that by order dtd. 8/4/202, passed by the N.C.L.T., New Delhi, the interim moratorium under Sec. 96 of the I.B. Code has been invoked. The accused No.2 is the personal guarantor to the company. It is, therefore, stated that in view of the imposition of moratorium viz-a-viz the accused No.2 by the N.C.L.T., New Delhi this proceedin