JUDGMENT

Mrs. Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral)

This order shall dispose of above mentioned two petitions as they arise out of the same complaint and impugned orders.

2. The petitioners are seeking quashing of Complaint bearing NACT No.68 of 2020 dated 24.01.2020 titled as 'Pooja Sharma v. C & C Towers Ltd. and others' (Annexure P-2) filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the NI Act') by respondent No.1-complainant, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Khanna, District Ludhiana, summoning order dated 03.09.2021 (Annexure P-1) and bailable warrants issued vide order dated 22.03.2023 (Annexure P-5).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are Directors of M/s C & C Towers Limited, respondent No.3 company (hereinafter referred as to 'Corporate Debtor'). Learned counsel contends that prior to the institution of the complaint in question, proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IBC') had been instituted against the Corporate Debtor and Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as 'CIRP'), as per the provisions of the IBC, had commenced against respondent No.2. Resultantly, vide order dated 10.10.2019, moratorium in terms of Section 14 (1) of the IBC had been declared by the National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'NCLT'), Chandigarh, pursuant to which one Amit Gupta was appointed as an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of the Corporate Debtor, as per provisions of Section 16 (5) of the IBC. Later one Gaurav Khanna was appointed as Resolution Professional (RP) of the Corporate Debtor.

4. Learned counsel has further brought to the notice of this Court that apart from proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC being instituted against the Corporate Debtor, proceedings under Section 95 of the IBC had also been instituted against the petitioners by the State Bank of India in August 2021. He submits that in the circumstances, when an application had been filed under Section 94 or 95 of the IBC, an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC would have commenced on the date of filing of such application. Furthermore, during the interim moratorium period, any legal action or proceeding, which may have been pending in respect of any debt would be deemed to have been stayed. Hence, by virtue of Section 96 of the IBC no legal action or proceedings in respect of any debt could have been initiated or continued against the petitioners which had, however, been illegally done in the instant case.

5. Learned counsel still further submits that once a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC had been declared, proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act also could not continue against the Corporate Debtor. Learned counsel submits that no doubt proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act could continue against natural persons mentioned under Section 14 1 of the NI Act even if a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC had been declared, however, the petitioners were not seeking protection under Section 14 of the IBC but under Section 96 of the IBC. Learned counsel, while placing reliance upon the judgement of Hon'ble the SC in P. Mohanraj and others v. Shah Brothers Ispat Private Limited : (2021) 6 SCC 258 argues that the scope of Section 96 of the IBC is much wider than that of Section 14 IBC, therefore, proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act cannot be permitted to continue or be initiated against the petitioners.

6. While juxtaposing the nature of proceedings of Section 14 and Section