$~15

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment reserved : 11.11.2022

Judgment pronounced : 15.05.2023

+

CRL.M.C. 381/2022 & CRL.M.A. 1727/2022, CRL.M.A. 13434/2022

SANDEEP GUPTA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Shashank Khurana, Adv.

versus

SHRI RAM STEEL TRADERS & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Shailendra Babbar, Mr. Avinash

Das, Advs.

Mr. Aayush Agarwala, Mr. Siddham

Nahata, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

J U D G M E N T

:

JASMEET SINGH, J

1.

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of impugned order dated

03.12.2021 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (New Delhi - 01), Patiala

House Court, New Delhi in CT No.12161/2018 titled ‘Shri Ram Steel Traders vs.

Richa Industries Limited and Ors.’

2.

The facts of the present case are that the complaint, being CT No

12161/2018, was filed by Respondent No.1-Shri Ram Steel Traders, against the

Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 2-Richa Industries Limited, under Section 138

read with Section 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter

called NI act) before the Metropolitan Magistrate, NewDelhi-01, Patiala House

Court, New Delhi.

3.

The petitioner was the Managing Director of Respondent no. 2. The

respondent no.1 alleged that the Petitioner and Respondent no 2 approached

Respondent no.1 for purchase of steel. On placing of purchase orders, materials

Digitally Signed byAMIT

ARORA

Signing Date:15.05.2023

20:25:25

Signature Not Verified

have been alleged to have been supplied to Respondent no.2 on credit. In

discharge of debt, respondent no.2 issued cheque no. 424055 dated 24^th march

2018 drawn on Corporation Bank, Faridabad for a sum of Rs. 6 crores. The

cheque was signed by the petitioner for and on behalf of respondent no.2. The

cheque on presentation was dishonored and hence the complaint.

4.

During the pendency of complaint, the petitioner started facing mounting

liabilities and two of his creditors, HDB Financial Services and Indian Overseas

Bank invoked their respective guarantees in 2019 that had been given by the

Petitioner for credit facilities that had been availed from them. In view of such

liabilities, and his incapacity to pay his liabilities, the Petitioner was constrained to

approach the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench for devising an

effective resolution plan in respect of his debts.

5.

During the pendency of the National Company Law Tribunal (herein after

called NCLT) proceedings, an application under Section 94 of the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Code (hereinafter called IBC) was filed by the Petitioner for personal

insolvency resolution process in respect of all his debt before the NCLT,

Chandigarh Bench. The application upon being filed on 24.08.2020 was initially

given Diary No.0404115/00887 /2020.

6.

Subsequently, this petition has been duly numbered as C.P.(IB)

No.88/Chd/Hry/2021 and is at present pending before the NCLT, Chandigarh

Bench.

7.

It is stated by the ld counsel for the petitioner that in view of the above

petition having been moved under Section 94 of the IBC, an interim moratorium

immediately came into effect under Section 96 of the IBC. Consequently, the

subject proceedings were liable to be stayed. The Petitioner moved an application

for stay of the subject proceedings pending before the Ld. MM, New Delhi - 01,

Patiala House Courts, New Delhi on 21.10.2021.

8.

The Respondent No.1, who was the complainant in the subject proceedings,

did not prefer any reply to the subject application. The Ld. Metropolitan

Digitally Signed byAMIT

ARORA

Signing Date:15.05.2023

20:25:25

Signature Not Verified

Magistrate heard arguments from both the parties and passed the impugned order

dated 03.12.2021 vide which the Ld. MM refused to stay of the criminal

complaint filed by Respondent No.1 and dismissed the application moved by the

Petitioner.

9.

It is submitted by Ld counsel for petitioner that the provisions of