The Court highlighted the need for the trial court to examine the allegations and evidence before deciding on the quashing of a criminal complaint.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - Through this petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners seek the quashing of the complaint bearing No.807 of 2020, dated 12.11.2020, presently pending before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, as well as the order dated 09.02.2021, whereby the petitioners have been summoned to face the trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. At the outset, it is important to note that the petitioners have not challenged the correctness of the order summoning them under the revisional jurisdiction of the Court. On a court question, the learned counsel admits that a revision petition is maintainable, however, he submits that he wishes to rely upon certain documents which cannot be relied upon in the revision petition. The learned counsel representing the petitioners was apprised of the limited jurisdiction, however, he insists for a decision on merits.

3. This Bench has heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and with his able assistance perused the paper book.

4. The learned counsel representing the petitioners has submitted the following four points for consideration:-

(1) When the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed, the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was in operation and therefore, in terms of Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the proceedings could not be initiated.

(2) When the cheque is alleged to have been issued, the petitioners no.1 to 3 were no more Directors as resolution professional was appointed on 13.02.2020, whereas the cheque is dated 15.09.2020. Hence, he contends that the petitioners cannot be made liable.

(3) That the complainant was in knowledge of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process but failed to disclose these facts to the Court and therefore, the complaint is result of concealment of material facts.

(4) Since, no proceedings could be initiated against Corporate Debtor, therefore, consequent proceedings against petitioner no.1 to 3 also could not be initiated and therefore, the complaint is liable to be quashed.

5. On dishonor of the cheque dated 15.09.2020, the respondent issued notice dated 06.10.2020, calling upon the petitioners to pay the defaulted amount of Rs.20,00,000/-, and on failure to do so, filed a complaint under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. The Court, after appreciating the facts, has summoned the petitioners. It has been alleged that the petitioners have been directed to appear before the Court on 13.01.2022 while issuing fresh notice on 23.09.2021.

6. The petitioners have alleged that a mutual settlement was signed between the parties on 24.08.2019 and consequently 11 undated cheques were handed over to the respondent in order to discharge the liability of Rs.2,20,00,000/-. The petitioners allege that Cheque No.000869, dated 15.09.2020, is a part of the aforesaid settlement which has been presented in infringement of the agreement between the parties. They allege that on 15.09.2020, the management of petitioner no.4 was handed over to Resolution Processsfional appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal and therefore, petitioner no.1 to 3 are not liable to be prosecuted.

7. Now, the court proceeds to analyse the arguments of the learned counsel.

8. As noticed above, the petitioners are yet to enter appearance before the trial court. They pray that the complaint as well as the order summoning the petitioners should be quashed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As far as the facts are concerned, the petitioners are yet to put in appearance and prove the facts with regard to the settlement between the parties on 24.08.2019, consequentially, the fact of handing over of 11 undated cheques is y