JUDGMENT : 1. By way of filing these Criminal Misc. Applications under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners seek quash of criminal proceedings in Criminal Case Nos.1426, 1427, 1429 and 1428 of 2016 on the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Amreli, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondent-State. Despite service of notice, none appeared for second respondent. 3. Since common issue involved in these matters, brief facts of the case relevant to dispose of these applications are taken from Criminal Misc. Application No.22170 of 2017, which may be stated as under:- 3.1 The second respondent is a company in the name and style of Sheetal Cool Products Limited. The first petitioner herein is also a company in the name of Wind Word (India) Limited and it is doing business of manufacturing and supplying wind turbine. The second respondent, who is the original complainant, has placed an order with the petitioner for supply of machines. Advance amount was paid for supply of the said machines at the time of placing the order. Thereafter, the first petitioner has supplied the machinery to the second respondent. As per the terms of their agreement, the machinery has to be supplied by the petitioner to the second respondent within stipulated time i.e. by 31.3.2016. The first petitioner could not supply part of the machinery within the time stipulated. Therefore, on the demand made by the second respondent, advance amount paid by the second respondent was returned by the first petitioner by way of issuing four post- dated cheques. The said cheques were presented to encash the same in the bank. They are dishonoured on the ground that there is insufficient fund in the bank account of the first petitioner. 3.2 After issuing notice and after complying with the procedure prescribed under the law, the second respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the first petitioner and its directors, who are petitioner nos. 2 to 5 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Amreli. 3.2 After issuing notice and after complying with the procedure prescribed under the law, the second respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the first petitioner and its directors, who are petitioner nos. 2 to 5 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Amreli. 3.3 During the pendency of the said complaint, it appears that the parties have entered into compromise as per the consent terms dated 21.4.2017 and it is agreed that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.1,35,00,000/- and Rs.10,000/- to the second respondent-complainant and, accordingly, they have paid the same. However, the second respondent claimed interest on the said amount. There was a dispute in this regard as the petitioners contend that there was no agreement for payment of any interest on it. Therefore, the offence could not be compounded in terms of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3.4 At that stage, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing this application under Section 482 of CrPC stating that having received the aforesaid amount of money, as per their understanding, the second respondent is now not coming forward to compound the offence under Section 147 of the NI Act and it amounts to abuse of process of the Court to continue the said criminal proceedings against the petitioners under Section 138 of the NI Act. 4. During the pendency of these applications, certain subsequent events have taken place which are required to be noticed. The second respondent admittedly is a company incorporated. The creditors of the petitioner, which is also a company, approached the NCLT against the petitioner company. Moratorium proceedings were issued in the said proceedings by the NCLT. They are in force. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that when the moratorium proceedings are initiated by the NCLT, all other proceedings relating to the said company including the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act shall be kept in abeyance till the said issue before the NCLT is resolved as per the law. In support of his contention that the moratorium also cover the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P.Mohanraj and others Vs. Shah Brothers Ispat Private Limited, (2021) 6 SSC 258. In support of his contention that the moratorium also cover the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P.Mohanraj and others Vs. Shah Brothers Ispat Private Limited, (2021) 6 SSC 258. Paragraph 67 of the said judgment is relevant and it reads thus:- “53. A conspectus of these judgments would show that the gravamen of a proceeding under Section 138, though couched in language making the act complained of an offence, is really in order to get back through a summary proceeding, the amount contained in the dishonoured cheque together with interest and costs, expeditiously and cheaply. We have already seen how it is the victim alone who can file the complaint which ordinarily culminates in the payment of fine as compensation which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque which would include the amount of the cheque and the interest and costs thereupon. Given our analysis of Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act together with the amendments made thereto and the case law cited hereinabove, it is clear that a quasi- criminal proceeding that is contained in Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act would, given the object and context of Section 14 of the IBC, amount to a “proceeding” within the meaning of Section 14(1)(a), the moratorium therefore attaching to such proceeding.” 5.1 Thus, the legal position is now made clear from the above said judgment of the Apex Court that the moratorium also cover the cases initiated under Section 138 of the NI Act and that the moratorium is attached to such proceedings also. 6. Following the said judgment of the Apex Court, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has also taken a similar view that moratorium also cover the criminal proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the NI Act. 7. When that be the legal position, as long as moratorium is in enforce it also applies to the proceedings under section 138 of the NI Act. The said criminal proceedings which are now pending in the trial Court initiated under Section 138 of the NI Act are to be kept in abeyance till the issue relating to moratorium is resolved finally by the NCLT. Since the moratorium applies to Section 138 proceeding also, present petition for quash also cannot be decided on its merits. The said criminal proceedings which are now pending in the trial Court initiated under Section 138 of the NI Act are to be kept in abeyance till the issue relating to moratorium is resolved finally by the NCLT. Since the moratorium applies to Section 138 proceeding also, present petition for quash also cannot be decided on its merits. Suffice it to hold that the trial Court proceedings shall be kept in abeyance till the issue by the NCLT relating to such moratorium is decided. 8. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, these applications are disposed of with a direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Amreli, to keep the criminal proceedings pending before the said Court under section 138 of the NI Act in Criminal Case Nos.1426, 1427, 1428 and 1429 of 2016 on its file in abeyance till the moratorium issue is resolved by NCLT. 9. Immediately after the moratorium issue is resolved by the NCLT, the petitioner nos.2 to 5 shall bring the said fact to the notice of the trial court for the purpose of revival of the criminal proceedings which are ordered to be kept in abeyance. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has sought liberty that after the proceedings are revived that they may be permitted to file fresh application to seek quash of the said proceedings on the available grounds. Liberty as sought for is granted.