JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. These applications are being decided by this common order since common questions of fact and law arise therein. Moreover, the proceedings are between the same parties. 3. The challenge in these applications, under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C."), is to the order/s refusing to stay the proceedings under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "NI Act") initiated by respondent no. 1, National Spot Exchange Limited (for short "NSEL"). Stay of the proceedings was sought relying on the provisions of Sec. 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short "IBC"). 4. The applicant in all these applications, is an accused no. 5 in the proceedings under Sec. 138 of NI Act. She had, in a capacity as the Director (Ex), signed the cheques issued in favour of the respondent-NSEL towards discharge of liability incurred by M/s. P. D. Agro Processors Private Limited (for short "PDAPPL") (accused no. 1 in the proceedings under Sec. 138 of NI Act). 5. It is the case of respondent-NSEL that it is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. It carries on business as a spot exchange providing for an electronic trading platform for spot contracts in commodities on a compulsory delivery basis. PDAPPL was a trading-cum-clearing member of NSEL. Accused nos. 2 to 4 in the proceedings, were its Directors. The applicant herein i.e. accused no. 5, was its Exdirector. All of them were In-charge of the day to day business of PDAPPL. They signed at the relevant time, the documents pertaining to the membership, including undertaking, as was required in accordance with Rules and Bye-laws of NSEL. The applicant herein in addition thereto, is a signatory to the postdated cheques issued along with the agreement and PDC declaration. 6. There were defaults of pay-ins on NSEL by its members, including PDAPPL. On working out liability in respect of outstanding trades, it was found that Rs.687.30 crores were due from PDAPPL. The cheques bearing nos. 734357, 734358 & 734359, dtd. 05/05/2014 of Rs.50.00 crores each issued for payment of Rs.150.00 crores, were therefore presented for encashment. The cheques returned unpaid for the reasons "Stop Payment" instructions. A statutory Demand Notice/s was therefore issued. Since the notice/s was not complied with, the prosecutions under Sec. 138 of NI Act came to be initiated. 7. 734357, 734358 & 734359, dtd. 05/05/2014 of Rs.50.00 crores each issued for payment of Rs.150.00 crores, were therefore presented for encashment. The cheques returned unpaid for the reasons "Stop Payment" instructions. A statutory Demand Notice/s was therefore issued. Since the notice/s was not complied with, the prosecutions under Sec. 138 of NI Act came to be initiated. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant would submit that in view of the commencement of interim moratorium in terms of Sec. 96 of IBC, the proceedings under Sec. 138 of NI Act shall be deemed to have been stayed. According to him, learned Magistrate erred in rejecting the applications preferred by the applicant for stay of those proceedings. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant relied on the following judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court :- * P. Mohanraj and Others v/s. Shah Brothers Ispat Private Limited, (2021)6 Supreme Court Cases 258; * State Bank of India v/s. V. Ramakrishnan and Another, (2018)17 Supreme Court Cases 394; * Vijay Kumar Ghai v/s. Pritpal Singh Babbar, 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 1672. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has made many submissions, reference thereto is not made in extenso, since the submissions made by him are part of the reasons in support of this order. 10. Learned Advocate for respondent-NSEL would, on the other hand, submit that it was a proceeding under Sec. 94 of IBC initiated by the State Bank of India (for short "SBI") against M/s. Dunar Foods Limited. Similar proceedings have also been initiated by the SBI against the applicant herein. The respondent-NSEL is not a party to those proceedings. The transactions between PDAPPL and respondent-NSEL are independent one. The applicant is a signatory to the cheques, which have been bounced. According to learned Advocate for respondent-NSEL, the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. Mohanraj and Others v/s. Shah Brothers Ispat Private Limited (supra) is quite distinguishable on facts. The issue involved therein pertained to a question of moratorium under Sec. 14 of IBC. He would further submit that the applicant herein had taken exception to the order of issuance of process. She has been unsuccessful in those proceedings before this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court as well. This Court vide its order dtd. The issue involved therein pertained to a question of moratorium under Sec. 14 of IBC. He would further submit that the applicant herein had taken exception to the order of issuance of process. She has been unsuccessful in those proceedings before this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court as well. This Court vide its order dtd. 06/04/2022 in Criminal Application No. 109/2020 and connected applications observed, "Since the cases are of 2013/2014, the trial of the said cases are expedited. The learned Judge to conclude the case expeditiously and in any event, within 12 months from the date of receipt of this order." 11. Learned Advocate for respondent-NSEL reiterated that since the respondent-NSEL was not a party to the proceeding under Sec. 94 of IBC, the effect of Sec. 96 of IBC has no application to the proceedings under Sec. 138 of NI Act pending before learned Metropolitan Magistrate. He therefore urged for rejection of the applications. 12. Before adverting to the issue involved in these applications, it needs to be stated that the applicant had taken exception to the order passed by learned Magistrate, by filing revision applications. The Revisional Court dismissed the revision applications on the ground of the orders, challenged therein, were interlocutory. 13. Considered the submissions advanced. Perused the authorities relied on. 14. Learned Trial Court rejected the prayer with the following observations :- "In order to attract Sec. 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to the present case, there must have been insolvency resolution process pending against the present accused no. 1 of which the accused no. 5 is alleged to be partner or the director. Any other insolvency resolution process filed against the accused no. 5 for her alleged liability, which has no concern with the present accused no. 1 or the subject transaction would not, by itself, attract Sec. 96 to the present proceeding. I do not find substance in the application. Hence, I pass the following order :- ORDER The application is rejected." 15. In the case of P. Mohanraj and Others v/s. Shah Brothers Ispat Private Limited (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus - "35 - When the language of Sec. 14 and Sec. 85 is contrasted, it becomes clear that though the language of Sec. 85 is only in respect of debts, the moratorium contained in Sec. 14 is not subject specific. The only light thrown on the subject is by the exception provision contained in Sec. 14(3)(a) which is that "transactions" are the subject-matter of Sec. 14(1). "Transaction" is, as we have seen, a much wider expression than "debt", and subsumes it. Also, the expression "proceedings" used by the legislature in Sec. 14(1)(a) is not trammelled by the word "legal" as a prefix that is contained in the moratorium provisions qua individuals and firms. Likewise, the provisions of Sec. 96 and Sec. 101 are moratorium provisions in Chapter III of Part III dealing with the insolvency resolution process of individuals and firms, the same expression, namely, "debts" is used as is used in Sec. 85. 35.2 - A "legal action or proceeding in respect of any debt" as mentioned in Ss. 81, 85, 96 and 101 IBC, would, on its plain language, include a Sec. 138 NI Act proceeding. This is for the reason that a Sec. 138 NI Act proceeding would be a legal proceeding "in respect of" a debt. "In respect of" is a phrase which is wide and includes anything done directly or indirectly. This, coupled with the fact that the sec. is not limited to "recovery" of any debt, would indicate that any legal proceeding even indirectly relatable to recovery of any debt would be covered. 36 - For all these reasons, therefore, given the object and context of Sec. 14, the expression "proceedings" cannot be cut down by any rule of construction and must be given a fair meaning consonant with the object and context. It is conceded before us that criminal proceedings which are not directly related to transactions evidencing debt or liability of the corporate debtor would be outside the scope of this expression. 37 - V. Ramakrishnan Looked at and contrasted Sec. 14 with Ss. 96 and 101 from the point of view of a guarantor to a debt, and in this context, held : We are also of the opinion that Ss. 96 and 101, when contrasted with Sec. 14, would show that Sec. 14 cannot possibly apply to a personal guarantor. When an application is filed under Part III, an interimmoratorium or a moratorium is applicable in respect of any debt due. First and foremost, this is a separate moratorium, applicable separately in the case of personal guarantors against whom insolvency resolution processes may be initiated under Part III. When an application is filed under Part III, an interimmoratorium or a moratorium is applicable in respect of any debt due. First and foremost, this is a separate moratorium, applicable separately in the case of personal guarantors against whom insolvency resolution processes may be initiated under Part III. Secondly, the protection of the moratorium under these Sec. is far greater than that of Sec. 14 in that pending legal proceedings in respect of the debt and not the debtor are stayed. The difference in language between Ss. 14 and 101 is for a reason." 16. As such, the proceedings under Sec. 138 read with 141 of NI Act get covered by the term "any legal action or proceeding pending in respect of any debt" appearing in Sec. 96(1) of IBC. 17. The contention of learned Advocate for the respondent-NSEL that NSEL is not a party to the proceedings, will be of no consequence. Admittedly, the SBI has filed a petition before National Company Law Board against the applicant herein to initiate Insolvency Resolution Process. It is necessary to have a glance at the relevant provisions of IBC. Chapter III of IBC speaks of Insolvency Resolution Process. Sec. 94 thereof pertains to the application by debtor to initiate the Insolvency Resolution Process. Under Sec. 95 of IBC, a creditor may move an application to initiate the Insolvency Resolution Process. For ready reference, Sec. 95(1) of IBC is reproduced, which reads thus :- "95 - Application by creditor to initiate insolvency resolution process. - (1) A creditor may apply either by himself, or jointly with other creditors, or through a resolution professional to the Adjudicating Authority for initiating an Insolvency Resolution Process under this sec. by submitting an application." 18. Sec. 96 of IBC speaks of "Interim-moratorium", which reads thus :- "96 - Interim-moratorium. - (1) When an application is filed under Sec. 94 or Sec. 95 - (a) an interim-moratorium shall commence on the date of the application in relation to all the debts and shall cease to have effect on the date of admission of such application; and (b) during the interim-moratorium period - (i) any legal action or proceeding pending in respect of any debt shall be deemed to have been stayed; and (ii) the creditors of the debtor shall not initiate any legal action or proceedings in respect of any debt. (2)...... (3)......" 19. (2)...... (3)......" 19. The adjudicating authority is expected to pass an order either allowing or rejecting the application under Sec. 94 or under Sec. 95, as the case may be. If the application is admitted under sec. 100 of IBC, moratorium shall commence in relation to all the debts and shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of 180 days beginning with the date of admission of the application or on the date, the Adjudication Authority passes an order on the repayment plan under Sec. 114 of IBC, whichever is earlier. 20. In view of Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 101 of IBC, during the moratorium period any pending legal action or proceeding in respect of any debt shall be deemed to have been stayed. Then Sec. 102 of IBC speaks of issuance of public notice and claims from creditors. For better appreciation, Sec. 102(1) is reproduced, which reads thus :- "102 - Public notice and claims from creditors - (1) - The Adjudicating Authority shall issue a public notice within seven days of passing the order under Sec. 100 inviting claims from all creditors within twenty-one days of such issue." 21. It is true that respondent-NSEL is not a party to the application moved under Sec. 95 of IBC. The terminology of clause (b) of Sec. 101(2) of IBC unequivocally suggests that any pending legal action or proceeding pending in respect of any debt shall be deemed to have been stayed. The debt incurred or likely to be incurred by the applicant herein by virtue of a final order, that may be passed in a proceedings under Sec. 138 of NI Act initiated by respondent-NSEL, is covered by the term "any debt" appearing in insolvency under Sec. 96 of Sub-sec. (1) of IBC. As per provisions under Sec. 103 of IBC, all the creditors are expected to register their claims with the resolution professional by sending details of the claims by way of electronic communications or through courier, speed post or registered letter. 22. Sec. 41 of the Indian Evidence Act speaks of a final judgment, order or decree of a Competent Court, in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction, operates as a judgment "in rem". 23. 22. Sec. 41 of the Indian Evidence Act speaks of a final judgment, order or decree of a Competent Court, in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction, operates as a judgment "in rem". 23. On going through the scheme of Insolvency Resolution Process contained in Chapter III of IBC, the contention of learned Advocate for respondent-NSEL that proceeding under Sec. 95 of IBC and outcome thereof is a party specific (parties to the said proceeding only), can not be accepted. 24. Learned Magistrate ought to have allowed the application/s for stay of the proceedings pending before it. Since the same has not been done, interference with the order/s impugned herein is warranted. In the result, the applications succeed. Hence, the following order is passed :- ORDER 1. Criminal Application Nos. 1151 to 1153 of 2022 and 1170 of 2022 are allowed. 2. The proceedings (C.C. Nos. 4185/SS/2017, 2218/SS/2017, 4186/SS/2017 and 2217/SS/2017) under Sec. 138 of NI Act pending before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai to stand stayed during the interim moratorium period. 3. Criminal Application Nos. 1151 to 1153 of 2022 and 1170 of 2022 stand disposed of.