Moratorium and resolution plan approval do not terminate cheque dishonour prosecution; defence objections must be raised at trial.

Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was stated not to bar continuation of criminal prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, because the moratorium covers suits and analogous proceedings, not penal prosecution. Approval of a resolution plan under Section 31 was stated to bind stakeholders and end the moratorium, but not to extinguish criminal liability or terminate cheque dishonour proceedings against the corporate debtor or an erstwhile managing director. The article also states that inability to access company records did not justify quashing, because defence remedies remain available during trial and no ground existed for inherent interference under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 bars continuation of criminal prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; (ii) Whether approval of the resolution plan under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 extinguishes or terminates such criminal prosecution against the corporate debtor and its erstwhile managing director; (iii) Whether the erstwhile managing director could seek quashing of the entire prosecution on the ground of inability to access company records and alleged infringement of fair trial rights.

Issue (i): Whether the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 bars continuation of criminal prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: Section 14 prohibits institution or continuation of suits and proceedings against the corporate debtor, but the expression "prosecution" is absent. The moratorium provision was read as confined to civil and analogous proceedings, while criminal prosecution under the cheque dishonour law serves a distinct penal object. The Court also relied on the structure of the Code and the reasoning of decisions holding that Section 14 does not extend to prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Conclusion: The moratorium does not bar continuation of the criminal prosecution.

Issue (ii): Whether approval of the resolution plan under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 extinguishes or terminates such criminal prosecution against the corporate debtor and its erstwhile managing director.

Analysis: Section 31 makes the approved resolution plan binding on stakeholders and causes the moratorium to cease, but it does not operate as a statutory compounding or abatement of criminal liability. The binding effect of the resolution plan was held to concern the management, assets, and civil obligations of the corporate debtor, not the jurisdiction of the criminal court to continue or conclude a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court further held that if the company survives after resolution, the erstwhile director cannot use the plan as a shield against prosecution, and if the company is dissolved, that does not erase personal penal liability under Section 141 where otherwise attracted.

Conclusion: The resolution plan does not extinguish the criminal prosecution, and the prosecution may continue.

Issue (iii): Whether the erstwhile managing director could seek quashing of the entire prosecution on the ground of inability to access company records and alleged infringement of fair trial rights.

Analysis: The Court held that the Code of Criminal Procedure provides procedural means for defence evidence and production of documents, and that the accused can invoke those provisions during trial. The petitioner, as erstwhile managing director, could not maintain a prayer to quash the entire prosecution on behalf of the company, particularly when the company had undergone resolution and a new management had taken over. The Court found no abuse of process and no ground to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The fair trial objection was rejected and quashing was refused.

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceedings under the cheque dishonour provisions were held maintainable notwithstanding insolvency moratorium and resolution plan approval, and the request for inherent-interference was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: Criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not terminated by the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or by approval of a resolution plan under Section 31 of that Code, and the criminal court's jurisdiction to try such proceedings remains unaffected.

---