The IBC's moratorium does not prevent criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act; personal liability remains intact despite insolvency proceedings.

1. Leave granted.

2. Since the facts and issues involved in all these cases are common, they are clubbed together and disposed of, by this common judgment.

3. All these appeals are filed against the orders passed by different High Courts, which dismissed the petitions filed under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (For short, "CrPC") and thereby affirmed the orders passed by the trial Court rejecting the applications filed for staying the proceedings under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (For short, "N.I. Act, 1881"), sine die till the conclusion of the proceedings initiated under S.94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (For short, "IBC"), before the National Company Law Tribunal. A writ petition has also been filed for declaration and direction that S.138 proceedings shall be deemed to be stayed during the operation of the moratorium period under S.96 IBC. The details of the cases are tabulated below:

4. The common legal question that arises for consideration herein is, whether the proceedings initiated against the appellants / petitioners under S.138 read with S.141 of the N.I. Act, 1881 should be stayed in view of the interim moratorium under S.96 IBC having come into effect upon the appellants / petitioners' filing applications under S.94 IBC. In view of the commonality of issues involved in all the cases, we need not necessarily review the facts of each case individually.

5. However, for ease of reference, the facts leading to the appeal arising out of S.L.P (Crl.) No.6087 of 2023, in a nutshell are as under:
5.1. The respondent viz., M/s Gurdas Agro Pvt. Ltd. filed a complaint under S.138 of the N.I. Act, 1881, against M/s Arjun Mall Retail Holdings Pvt. Ltd. through its Director - Kiran Bhanot, Kiran Bhanot (wife of the appellant), Rakesh Bhanot (appellant herein), and Arjun Bhanot (their son). It was alleged in the complaint that the accused issued four cheques each for Rs.50,00,000/- drawn on UCO Bank, Mid Corporate Industrial Area, Ludhiana, in order to discharge their legally enforceable liability. When the cheques were presented for encashment, the same were returned with the endorsement "Funds Insufficient". After issuance of a legal notice and upon the failure of the accused to make payment within the stipulated time, the respondent / complainant preferred a complaint under S.138 of the N.I. Act, 1881. The said complaint was taken on file as COMA No.1059/2019 and is pending adjudication before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatinda.
5.2. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings under S.138 of the N.I. Act, 1881, the appellant Rakesh Bhanot filed an application in CP(IB) No.147 / CHD / PB / 2021 under S.94 IBC before the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, for personal insolvency. His wife, who is a co - accused, also filed a similar application. The said applications are pending adjudication. Pending the said proceedings, the appellant moved an application before the trial Court for adjourning the S.138 proceedings sine die, in view of the pendency of S.94 IBC petition as well as the injunctive provision as envisaged under S.96 IBC.
5.3. The trial Court, vide order dated 23/05/2022, rejected the aforesaid application. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, by filing a criminal petition bearing No.CRM - M - 37169-2022 (O&M) under S.482 CrPC. By order dated 23/03/2023, the said criminal petition came to be dismissed by the High Court. Challenging the same, the appellant is before us with the present appeal.

6. The other appeals as wel