Case at a Glance
A former managing director facing a cheque-bounce prosecution by UCO Bank argued that the moratorium triggered by his personal insolvency and later bankruptcy under Part III of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code barred the Section 138 case. A two-judge Bench held that Section 138 proceedings are predominantly criminal and not a recovery action, and expressed the view that the moratorium does not stay the punitive part (imprisonment or fine) but does stay the compensatory part. Finding tension with the three-judge decision in P. Mohanraj v. Shah Bros. Ispat (P) Ltd., (2021) 03 SC CK 0008, it framed two questions and directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for a three-judge Bench.
The appellant was the former managing director of Surana Power Ltd., which went into liquidation by an NCLT Chennai order of 19 February 2018. Bank facilities included an irrevocable letter of credit of ₹5,03,21,250 for buying Indonesian coal. A cheque issued on 26 March 2015 to clear the dues was dishonoured on 18 June 2015 for insufficient funds, and after a statutory notice dated 23 June 2015, UCO Bank filed a Section 138 complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. An earlier quashing petition was dismissed by the Madras High Court.
On 15 February 2022 the NCLT admitted an insolvency application against the appellant personally under Section 95 of the IBC. On 18 October 2023 the Madras High Court refused to quash or stay the complaint, holding that Section 138 is criminal and not a recovery proceeding. A Section 101 moratorium was triggered on 30 August 2024, the insolvency matter was closed on 3 January 2025 with liberty to seek bankruptcy, and a bankruptcy order was passed on 12 November 2025, so the Section 128 moratorium now operates.
The Key Question Before the Court
Are Section 138 NI Act proceedings a legal action to recover a debt, and are they (or directors liable under Section 141) protected by the moratorium in personal insolvency and bankruptcy under Sections 96, 101, 124 and 128 of the IBC?
Punishment Versus Compensation: The Two Tiers of Section 138
The Court reasoned that dishonour becomes an offence only through a deeming fiction, so “the provision is punitive”, and that “criminal consequences are attached not to the failure to repay the debt but rather, to the dishonour of the cheque.” It answered “an emphatic ‘No’” to the suggestion that Section 138 is primarily a civil wrong, and held that “the proceedings under Section 138 cannot be merely categorized as recovery of money proceedings.” It said that in P. Mohanraj v. Shah Bros. Ispat (P) Ltd., which called Section 138 “a civil sheep in a criminal wolf’s clothing”, the Court’s attention was not drawn to the predominantly criminal aspects. It relied on Ajay Kumar Radheshyam Goenka v. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd., (2023) 03 SC CK 0112 and Rakesh Bhanot v. Gurdas Agro Pvt. Ltd., which hold that a director’s personal liability survives the company’s insolvency.
The Bench split the proceedings into two tiers: Tier I, adjudicating dishonour and imposing imprisonment or fine, which is criminal and mandatory; and Tier II, compensation under Section 357 CrPC / Section 395 BNSS, which is discretionary and civil in character and must come out of the fine. Since Section 79(15) of the IBC excludes a court-imposed fine from “debt”, the punitive aspect is not stayed, but the compensatory aspect is stayed while recovery is pending; “operation of moratorium depends upon the stage of the Section 138 proceeding.” A director under Section 141, where the company cannot be prosecuted due to a legal impediment, gets moratorium protection for compensation while personally insolvent but remains liable to the criminal consequences. Because these views sit uneasily with P. Mohanraj, a three-judge decision, the Bench sought an authoritative ruling.
What the Court Actually Held
- Section 138 proceedings are not a legal action for recovery of money; their predominant nature is criminal, though quasi-criminal in form.
- In the Bench’s view, the Part III moratorium does not stay the punitive aspect (imprisonment or fine), since a fine is not a ‘debt’ under Section 79(15) IBC, but does stay the compensatory aspect while recovery is pending.
- Directors liable under Section 141 who are personally insolvent are protected for compensation liability, but not from the criminal consequences.
- Two questions — whether Section 138 is quasi-criminal with a tilt to the criminal side, and whether the Part III moratorium covers the whole proceeding or only compensation — were referred; the Registry was directed to place the matters before the Chief Justice of India.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It signals a possible rethink of the widely cited ‘civil sheep in a criminal wolf’s clothing’ view of cheque bounce cases.
- Banks and lenders prosecuting cheque bounce cases against personally insolvent guarantors and directors get guidance on what the moratorium covers.
- Until the larger Bench decides, trial courts must handle Section 138 cases against insolvent individuals with the stage of the proceeding in mind.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Complainants and Lenders
- Personal insolvency of the drawer may not end the criminal prosecution.
- The compensation part of a Section 138 case may be stayed during a Part III moratorium.
- Watch for the three-judge Bench ruling, which will settle the position.
For Counsel
- Distinguish between the punitive and compensatory tiers when seeking or opposing a stay.
- Rely on Section 79(15) IBC: a court-imposed fine is not a dischargeable debt.
- Note that the referral leaves P. Mohanraj binding until the larger Bench rules.
Key Takeaways
- Section 138 is predominantly criminal, not a debt-recovery tool, in the Bench’s view.
- Fines are outside the IBC’s definition of debt.
- Compensation under Section 357 CrPC / 395 BNSS is the civil tier that a moratorium may stay.
- The final word will come from a three-judge Bench.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does personal insolvency or bankruptcy stop a cheque bounce case?
According to this two-judge Bench, the criminal part (imprisonment or fine) is not stayed, but the compensation part is stayed during the moratorium. The questions have been referred to a three-judge Bench for an authoritative answer.
Why was the case referred to a larger Bench?
The Bench’s view that Section 138 is predominantly criminal is in tension with the three-judge decision in P. Mohanraj, which described it as a civil wrong in criminal form.
What is the ‘two-tier’ approach?
Tier I is the criminal adjudication and sentence; Tier II is the discretionary compensation drawn from the fine. Only the second is treated as civil in character.
Conclusion
The judgment is an important reference rather than a final word. It lays out a structured view — punishment survives the moratorium, compensation waits — and asks a larger Bench to reconcile it with existing three-judge precedent.
Practical takeaway: In Section 138 cases against personally insolvent drawers or directors, frame stay applications around the stage of the proceeding and the compensatory component, pending the three-judge Bench ruling.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com