State Bank of India .......Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the petitioner: Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Arvind Sharma and Ms. Kiran Sharma, Advocates. _________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) [ Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 21.07.2023, whereby an application on behalf of petitioner (hereinafter 'accused') filed under Section 96 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, praying therein to stay the proceedings initiated at the behest of respondent complainant (hereinafter 'complainant') under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter 'Act') came to be dismissed, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order and stay the further proceedings in the complaint filed by the complainant bank under Section 138 of the Act. 2. For having bird's eye view, facts relevant for adjudication of the case at hand are that complainant bank instituted proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the Court of learned JMFC Court No. III, Una, alleging therein that accused and his wife Smt. Shaveta Sharma applied for term loan facility as house loan for sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/ and same was ::: Downloaded on 20/09/2024 20:36:04 :::CIS 2 granted on 24.01.2015. Since accused failed to repay the loan amount as per the terms and conditions of agreement executed inter se accused and complainant bank and the sum of Rs. 2,04,66,124/ alongwith interest . calculated up to 12.02.2019 was outstanding loan amount against the accused, he with a view to discharge his lawful liability issued cheque bearing No. 393682 dated 14.02.2019 amounting to Rs. 5,90,000/ of his account No. 35417139168 of State Bank of India, Branch Basal, District Una, H.P. in favour of complainant, but fact remains that aforesaid cheque on its presentation, was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds vide memo dated 14.02.2019. Since accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, complainant bank was compelled to initiate proceedings before the competent Court of law under Section 138 of the Act. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of averments contained in the complaint as well as documents annexed therewith issued process against the accused. During pendency of afore complaint, accused filed an application under Section 96 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Annexure P7), stating therein that he has filed one application under Section 94(1) read with other applicable provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh and in pursuance to the invocation of said provision of law, the same become operational, whereby interim moratorium has actually commenced on the date of filing of the petition. Accused also submitted in afore application that as per Section 96(1) (a) an interim moratorium will commence on the date of the application in relation to all the debts and ::: Downloaded on 20/09/2024 20:36:04 :::CIS 3 shall cease to have effect on the date of admission on such application. It was further stated in the application that as per Section 96 (1) (b) (i) that during interim moratorium period any pending legal action or proceedings . in respect of any debt shall be deemed to have been stayed and as per 96 (1) (b) (ii) during the interim moratorium the creditors of the debtors shall not initiate any legal action or proceedings in respect of any debts. 4. Afore prayer made on behalf of accused came to be resisted at the behest of complainant bank, which by way of filing rep