In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Raj Kumar Choudhary … Petitioner VERSUS Surender Singh and others ... Respondents 140-I CRM-M-21114-2023 (O&M) Sapan Mohan Gupta … Petitioner VERSUS Surender Singh and others ... Respondents Date of Decision:- 21 .04.2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:- Mr. Deeptanshu Jain, Advocate and Ms. Nimisha, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Nitin Kant Setia, Advocate and Mr. Sahib Sabharwal, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.

*****

SUBHAS MEHLA , J. (Oral)

1. The present petitions under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 have been filed for quashing of impugned order dated 28.04.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram, in complaint case bearing No.NACT/10445/2022 titled ‘Surender Singh and another Vs.

Ashiana Landcraft Realty Pvt. Ltd. and others’.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) inter-alia contended that the cheques in dispute are post dated cheques, bearing dates 01.12.2021, 15.12.2021 and 31.12.2021. These cheques were handed over to the JDs before the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority Gurugram on date 09.09.2021. However, these cheques were returned dishonoured vide return memo dated 10.02.2022 with remarks “Account Blocked”. The bank account had been attached, by virtue of order dated 16.09.2021, passed by HRERA, because of which cheques in question could not be honoured. Moreover, this kind of dishonor of cheque (i.e. Account Blocked) does not fall within the ambit of the section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act 1881. Learned counsel, while drawing the attention of this Court to Annexure P-6, further submitted that, by virtue of an order dated 11.01.2022, passed by National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was admitted and Moratorium under section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), was declared and Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was also appointed on the same day. That due to admission of CIRP and appointment of IRP, effective control of management of the company, including the bank accounts was shifted to IRP by virtue of section 17 of the IBC. Thus, petitioners cannot be said to be liable for not honouring the demand notice issued by the Respondent No. 1 and 2/complainants under section 138 NI Act. To support his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment given by two judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as “Vishnoo Mittal versus Shakti Trading Company [(2025) 9 SCC 417” by submitting that proceedings, under section

138 NI Act, against the Directors, are not maintainable, where moratorium under section 14 IBC commences prior to issuance of notice of dishonor.

3. Per Contra learned counsel for the respondents contended that Directors and signatories of dishonoured cheques cannot escape criminal liability under Section 138 by invoking moratorium under IBC. He further submitted that moratorium applies only to the corporate debtor and not to individuals responsible under Section 141 of NI Act. He relied upon the judgment of this court in a case titled as “Rakesh Juneja and another versus M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and another [2025 (4) RCR (Criminal) 318] wherein a judgment of three judge bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in a case titled as ‘Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka versus Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd., [(2023) 10 SCC 545]’

was relied upon by this court. The relevant contents of the judgment are:

“

xxx

11. The discussion above makes it clear that the imposition of a moratorium and appointment of an IRP only protects the corporate entity that has filed for insolvency and not the private persons involved with it. Such private persons have been specifically made vicariously liable by virtue of Section 141 of the NI Act for the acts perpetuated by them in the name of the corporate entity. Further still, it is settled law that the proceedings under the NI Act cannot only be continued but also init