JUDGMENT :

MANDEEP PANNU, J. 

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of criminal complaint bearing No. NACT No. 8909 of 2018 dated 29.08.2018, titled as M/s Brij Lal Ashok Kumar vs. Tara Chand Rice Mills and another, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as well as the summoning order dated 13.10.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on the request of the accused, the complainant firm supplied paddy from time to time commencing from 21.10.2014 to 03.01.2016, against which invoices were raised and payments partly made, and a running account was maintained. As per the said account, an amount of Rs. 2,23,89,593/- was outstanding as on 31.12.2017. Thereafter, a settlement was arrived at between the parties on 16.03.2018, pursuant to which the accused paid a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs and issued five post-dated cheques, namely cheque No. 244591 dated 15.06.2018 for Rs. 40,00,000/-, cheque No. 244592 dated 15.09.2018 for Rs. 40,00,000/-, cheque No. 244593 dated 15.12.2018 for Rs. 40,00,000/-, cheque No. 244594 dated 15.03.2019 for Rs. 40,00,000/- and cheque No. 244595 dated 15.06.2019 for Rs. 38,89,593/-, all drawn on Punjab National Bank, Karnal.

3. It is further the case of the complainant that cheque No. 244591 dated 15.06.2018 for Rs. 40,00,000/- when presented for encashment was dishonoured vide return memo dated 18.06.2018 with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 16.07.2018, which was dispatched on 17.07.2018, calling upon the accused to make payment within 15 days of receipt of notice, however, despite receipt of the notice, the accused failed to make the payment. Consequently, the present complaint was filed on 29.08.2018 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

4. Vide impugned order dated 13.10.2018, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, after considering the preliminary evidence led by the complainant and the documents placed on record, recorded a prima facie satisfaction that the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were made out and accordingly summoned the accused to face trial.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid summoning order dated 13.10.2018, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused seeking quashing of the criminal complaint as well as the summoning order passed by the learned trial Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that prior to the issuance of the disputed cheque dated 15.06.2018, proceedings under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 had already been initiated against the corporate debtor and the same were admitted vide order dated 16.03.2018, pursuant to which an Interim Resolution Professional was appointed on 21.03.2018. It is submitted that upon such initiation of proceedings, the management and control of the company stood vested in the Interim Resolution Professional and the petitioner, being a Director, ceased to have any control over the affairs of the company, including its financial transactions, and thus could not be held liable for the alleged dishonour of cheque.

7. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Vishnoo Mittal vs. M/s Shakti Trading Company’ (Criminal Appeal No. 1287 of 2025 decided on 17.03.2025), wherein it has been held that where the cause of action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises after the imposition of moratorium and the control of the company vests with the Interim Resolution Professional, the Directors cannot be prosecuted as they are no longer in charge of the affairs of the company. Further reliance has been placed upon a judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a similar matter titled ‘Anil Kumar vs. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd.’ (C