( 2025:JHHC:25456 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No.1403 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1403 of 2025 ------ Prateek Patodia, aged about 39 years, son of Pawan Kumar Patodia, Resident of 3, Moira Street, Circus Avenue, PO & PS-Circus Avenue, District-Kolkata, West Bengal, Pin-700017. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, and 2. Nirmal Kumar Pradeep Kumar (HUF) through its Karta Pradeep Kumar Jain, son of Late Nirmal Kumar Jain, Resident of Godrej Showroom, Main Road, PO & PS-Lower Bazar, District-Ranchi. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Yashvardhan, Advocate : Mr. Kirtivardhan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. Though, notice has been validly served upon the opposite party no.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in spite of repeated calls. 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 15.05.2025 in Criminal Revision No.194 of 2025 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has upheld the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi wherein the petition filed by the petitioner for stay of proceeding in Complaint ( 2025:JHHC:25456 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No.1403 of 2025 Case No.3887 of 2017 in view of the filing of the application under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the petitioner before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi. 4. The brief fact of the case is that the complaint case no.3887 of 2017 was filed by the opposite party no.2 of this Cr.M.P., who was the complainant involving the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. During the pendency of the said case, the petitioner who was the accused person in the said complaint case filed petition under Section 96(1)(a) read with Section 96(b)(i) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 contending therein that since Union Bank of India (financial creditor) has filed an application under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the petitioner, before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench vide case no. C.P.(IB)/50 (KB) 2025 arraying the petitioner as a personal guarantor and subsequently Union Bank of India already filed another application against the same personal guarantor vide case no. C.P.(IB)/51 (KB) 2025 and the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench has tagged both the matters, hence, the interim moratorium has commenced from the date of filing of such application in relation to all debts and shall deemed to have effect from that date, hence, the proceedings of the complaint case no.3887 of 2017 be stayed. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi considered that the subject matter of complaint case no.3887 of 2017 relates to borrowing of money by the petitioner in his personal capacity for which he has issued cheque to the complainant of the said case, which was dishonored and by observing that a moratorium and consequential stay of legal proceeding relating to debts of the ( 2025:JHHC:25456 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No.1403 of 2025 corporate debtor and moratorium under Section 96 and 101 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not necessarily shield the guarantor from all legal actions, including those under Negotiable Instruments Act. Since, the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 will not automatically absolve the liability of the petitioner under the Negotiable Instruments Act for personal debts, hence, rejected the same vide order dated 26.03.2025. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.194 of 2025 before the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi and the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi vide order dated 15.05.2025 observed that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy proceeding having been initiated by the Union Bank of India not by the complainant of the complaint case no.3887 of 2017 being the creditor of the petitioner, so the complaint case no.3887 of 2017 and the proceeding in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 having been brought by different creditor pending between different parties at both stages, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi has rightly observed that the same does not cover the complaint case no.3887 of 2017 and affirmed the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi and dismissed the Criminal Revision No.194 of 2025. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the observation and the ground for rejecting the Criminal Revision No.194 of 2025 by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi by making a distinction that the application under insolvency proceeding filed by a different creditor being Union Bank of India will not cover the complainant of this Court, is fallacious and is not in ( 2025:JHHC:25456 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No.1403 of 2025 accordance with law, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for, in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that there is no illegality in the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.3887 of 2017 or the order dated 15.05.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No.194 of 2025, hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that by now it is a settled principle of law that the term “any legal action or proceeding” appearing in Section 96(b)(i) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 will not cover in its ambit to stall the proceedings unrelated to the recovery of the debt and the protection is not available against penal actions, the object of which is not to recover any debt as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rakesh Bhanot vs. Gurdas Agro Private Limited and allied cases reported in (2025) 6 SCC 781, paragraph-18 and 23 of which reads as under:- ‘’18. From the above provisions, it is clear that the term “corporate person” includes a company as defined under Section 2(20) of the Companies Act, 2013, and a limited liability partnership. However, there is a subtle difference in the protection available to the Directors and the Partners. In case of a partnership firm, the interim moratorium protects not only the firm, but also the Partners. But in case of a company, such protection is available only to the company and not to its Directors. That apart, the object of interim moratorium can be no different from that of the moratorium specified under Section 14. It is also clear from Section 14 that the protection from legal ( 2025:JHHC:25456 ) 5 Cr. M.P. No.1403 of 2025 action during the period of moratorium is not available to the surety or in other words, to a personal guarantor. The use of the words “all the debts” and “in respect of any debt” in sub-section (1) of Section 96 is not without a purpose, as the moratorium is intended to offer protection only against civil claim to recover the debt. Hence, such period of moratorium prescribed under Section 14 or 96 is restricted in its applicability only to protection against civil claims which are directed towards recovery and not from criminal action.’’ ‘’23. Upon filing of the application under Section 94 IBC, a moratorium comes into effect, designed to protect the debtors from any legal actions concerning their debts. Specifically, Section 96 IBC provides that any legal proceedings pending against the debtor concerning any debt shall be deemed to have been stayed. The term “any legal action or proceedings” does not mean “every legal action or proceedings”. In Sections 96(b)(i) and (ii), the term “legal action or proceedings” are followed by the term “in respect of any debt”. The term “legal action or proceedings” would have to be understood to include such legal action or proceedings relating to recovery of debt by invoking the principles of noscitur a sociis. The purpose of interim moratorium contemplated under Section 96 is to be derived from the object of the act, which is not to stall the proceedings unrelated to the recovery of the debt. The protection is not available against penal actions, the object of which is to not recover any debt. This moratorium serves as a critical mechanism, allowing the debtor to reorganise their financial affairs without the immediate threat of creditor actions. The clear and unequivocal language of this provision reflects the legislative intent to provide a protective shield for debtors during the insolvency process.’’ (Emphasis supplied) 8. In view of this settled principle of law as discussed above, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi has not committed any illegality in passing the order dated 26.03.2025 in Complaint Case No.3887 of 2017 and keeping alive the proceedings of the same despite filing of the Application under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and subsequently the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has also committed no illegality in affirming the same; of course for not so sound reasons, as it failed to take note of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme ( 2025:JHHC:25456 ) 6 Cr. M.P. No.1403 of 2025 Court of India in the case of Rakesh Bhanot vs. Gurdas Agro Private Limited and allied cases (supra). 9. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. 10. In view of dismissal of the instant Cr.M.P., the I.A. No.7491 of 2025 and I.A. No.9595 of 2025 are disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 25th of August, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj