Insolvency Code Doesn't Stop Criminal Case

The court held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not prevent the ongoing criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner's claim that the resolution plan absolved personal liability was rejected. The court dismissed the petitions, ruling that the prosecution's continuation was not an abuse of legal process and declined to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.PC in favor of the petitioner.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of complaints under Section 138 r/w 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Impact of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on criminal proceedings.
3. Interpretation of Section 14 and Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
4. Personal liability of the petitioner as the former Managing Director.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Complaints under Section 138 r/w 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
The petitioner sought to quash complaints filed by M/s. Tap Engineering under Section 138 r/w 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, due to dishonoured cheques issued by M/s. Tecpro Systems Limited. The court noted that the cheques were issued by the authorized signatory of Tecpro Systems Limited and that the petitioner was not personally liable.

2. Impact of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on Criminal Proceedings:
The petitioner argued that the acceptance of the resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the subsequent change in management should lead to the quashing of the criminal prosecution. However, the court held that Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which declares a moratorium, does not bar criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court referred to judgments from the High Court of Calcutta and the National Company Law Tribunal to support this interpretation.

3. Interpretation of Section 14 and Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:
The court observed that Section 14 of the Code does not include the term "prosecution," implying that criminal proceedings are not barred during the moratorium. Section 31 of the Code, which makes the resolution plan binding on the corporate debtor and its stakeholders, does not lead to the extinguishment of criminal prosecution. The court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in State Bank of India v. V. Ramakrishnan and Ors., which clarified that personal guarantors and directors cannot escape liability due to the resolution plan.

4. Personal Liability of the Petitioner as the Former Managing Director:
The court emphasized that the petitioner, as the former Managing Director, cannot avoid prosecution under Section 138 r/w 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd., which held that personal liability of directors continues even if the company is dissolved.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, does not bar the continuation of criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner's argument that the resolution plan extinguished his liability was rejected. The court dismissed the petitions, stating that the continuation of the prosecution does not constitute an abuse of legal process. The inherent powers of the court under Section 482 of Cr.PC were not invoked in favor of the petitioner.

---