IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3301 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

1. M/S RAJESH PROJECTS (INDIA) PVT LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SHOP NO. 214, LSC BLOCK-B RG CITY CENTRE, LAWRENCE ROAD DELHI NORTH WEST DELHI-110035 BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR SHWETA TIWARI.

2. MR RAJESH GOYAL DIRECTOR OF M/S RAJESH PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD SHOP NO. 214,LSC BLOCK-B RG CITY CENTRE LAWRENCE ROAD, DELHI NORTH WEST Digitally DELHI-110 035.

signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY 3. MR AMOD KUMAR JHA Location: High FORMER EMPLOYEE OF Court of Karnataka M/S RAJESH PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD SHOP NO. 214, LSC BLOCK-B RG CITY CENTRE LAWRENCE ROAD, DELHI NORTH WEST DELHI-110 035.

4. MR DEEPAK GUPTA DIRECTOR OF M/S RAJESH PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD SHOP NO. 214, LSC BLOCK-B RG CITY CENTRE, LAWRENCE ROAD DELHI NORTH WEST, DELHI-110 035.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANJEEV B. L., ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S LAKSHMI HYDRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 107, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560099 REPRESENTED BY MR PARDEEP KUMAR GATTANI.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANAND MUTTALLI, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING THAT TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.7456/2021 ARISING OUT OF PCR.NO.272/2020 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., ANEKAL VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

Petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 4 are at the doors of this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.7456/2021, pending before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Heard Sri B.L.Sanjeev, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anand Muttalli, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

Petitioner No.1 is a Company, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the office bearers or said to be the directors of the said company. A transaction between the petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 4 and the respondent – complainant leads the complainant before the concerned Court alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. The concerned Court takes cognizance of the offence and issues summons. It is therefore, the petitioners are before this Court in the subject petition.

4. Sri B.L.Sanjeev, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned, an Interim Resolution Professional (for short ‘the IRP’) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short ‘the Code’) had taken over the company in the year 2019 and therefore, petitioner No.1 – company in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court, cannot be held liable. Insofar as petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, the learned counsel submits that once an IRP had taken over the company, petitioner Nos.3 and 4 could not have had any role to play in the day-to-day affairs of the company. Insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned, the learned counsel admits that he is a signatory to the cheque.

5. Sri Anand Muttalli, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would refute the submissions, contending that the moratorium so imposed under the Code or the IRP by taking over the Company would not mean that they would be absolved. Except petitioner No.1, the company, all the other three will have to come out clean in a full blown trial, is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties.

7. The afore-narrated facts are all a matter of record.

Insofar as petitioner No.1 – Rajesh Projects, a company which had a transaction with the respondent – complainant, went into