1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2116 OF 2007 M/s. Bellary Steels & Alloys Ltd.& Ors. ... Petitioners. Versus IndusInd Bank Ltd. & Ors. .... Respondents. Mrs.Neha Palshikar-Bhide for the Petitioners. Mr. A.A.Siddiquie i/by M/s.M.V.Kini & Co., for Respondent No.1. Ms. P.H.Kantharia, Addl.P.P. for the State. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI and S. A. BOBDE, JJ. DATED : 24TH MARCH, 2008. P. C.: This is a petition for quashing of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that the petitioner No.1 company, of which the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the Managing Director and Director respectively, is a sick industry in terms of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1995 and as such in terms of Section 22 of the Act the proceedings cannot be initiated. This question has already been answered by the Supreme Court in M/s.Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. V/s M/s. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. & Ors.,reported in 2 JT 2000 (2) SC 390. In paragraph 18 the Supreme Court held that in Their Lordships' considered view Section 22 of SICA does not create any legal impediment for instituting and proceeding with a criminal case on the allegation of an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act against a company or its Directors. But in paragraph 19 the Supreme Court took note of the fact that in view of the jurisdiction of BIFR and in view of the fact that in case of sick industry the BIFR gives direction not to dispose of properties or issue cheque of the company which is before them and in such a situation the company or its directors would not be in a position to meet the demand arising out of the cheque given by the company because if they do so they would violate the orders of the BIFR. However, the Supreme Court while noting down these difficulties, in paragraph 20 said, except in the circumstances noted above we do not find any good reason for accepting the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants in favour of the prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings or for keeping the proceedings in abeyance and it will be open to the appellants to place relevant materials in this regard before the learned Magistrate before whom the cases are pending and the learned Magistrate will examine the matter keeping in mind the discussions made in the said judgment. 2. Considering the above, we feel that we cannot pass any order 3 different than the order passed by the Supreme Court and dispose of the petition and give liberty to the petitioners to raise the plea that may be available to them in law before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate may consider the difficulties of the petitioners in the light of the mandate of paragraph 19 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court. 3. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (S. A. BOBDE, J.)