Delhi District Court
Skylark Multi State Cooperative Group ... vs Devi Prasad Semwal on 5 January, 2026
DLND010030552025 Page 1 of 16
Cr Rev 231/2025
Skylark Muli State Cooperative Group
Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
(Sh. Nitya Sharma, Director)
Vs.
Devi Prasad Semwal
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05
NEW DELHI DISTRICT : PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 231/2025
In the matter of :-
Sh. Nitya Sharma
Director
Skylark Multi State Cooperative Group
Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
R/- A-4/276, Paschim Vihar,
Delhi-110063
.....Revisionist
(represented by Ld. Counsels Sh. Piyush Pathak & Sh. Rohit Yadav)
Versus
Devi Prasad Semwal
S/o Late Sh. G.D. Semwal
R/o Ashok Vatika Residences,
Tower 3 Flat-301,
Jaypee Greens, Greater Noida
Uttar Pradesh-201306
....Respondent
(represented by Ld. Counsel Sh. Parth Semwal)
Criminal revision under section 399 R/w Section 397 CrPC, 1973
Date of institution : 30.04.2025
Date when judgment reserved : 05.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 05.01.2026
SAURABH Digitally signed
by SAURABH
PARTAP PARTAP SINGH
LALER
SINGH Date: 2026.01.05
LALER 17:40:41 +0530
DLND010030552025 Page 2 of 16
Cr Rev 231/2025
Skylark Muli State Cooperative Group
Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
(Sh. Nitya Sharma, Director)
Vs.
Devi Prasad Semwal
JUDGMENT
1. The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 399 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now repealed and substituted by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) challenging the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act-03), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, whereby the application filed by the Revisionists under Section 117(2) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (MSCS Act) seeking stay of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4162/2019 was dismissed .
2. Brief Facts
(a) The respondent-complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the Revisionists alleging that a cheque bearing No. 000025 dated 20.12.2018 for Rs. 12,08,000/- drawn on UCO Bank, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi was dishonoured with the remarks "Funds Insufficient" . The cheque was allegedly issued by Skylark Multi State Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. (Accused No. 1) towards refund of money invested by the complainant in the society. Subsequently, vide order dated 09.02.2021, the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies ordered the winding up of the said society under Section 86 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 .
(b) During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the Revisionists filed an application on 29.10.2021 under Section 117(2) of the Multi-State SAURABH Digitally signed by SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.05 LALER 17:40:51 +0530 DLND010030552025 Page 3 of 16 Cr Rev 231/2025 Skylark Muli State Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
(Sh. Nitya Sharma, Director) Vs. Devi Prasad Semwal Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 praying that the proceedings be stayed sine die in view of the liquidation proceedings. The said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 29.01.2025, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Mohanraj vs. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd., (2021) 6 SCC 258.
3. Submissions of the Revisionists: The learned counsel for the Revisionists has contended that:
(a) Section 117(2) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 bars continuation of proceedings relating to the business of the society during winding up without leave of the Central Registrar ;
(b) The expression "other legal proceedings" under Section 117(2) should be given a wide interpretation to include criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act ;
(c) The learned Magistrate erred in relying upon P. Mohanraj judgment as it pertains to the IBC, 2016 and companies, whereas the present case involves a cooperative society ;
(d) The judgment in Governor General in Council vs. Shiromani Sugar Mills Ltd., AIR 1946 FC 16 supports their contention .
4. Submissions of the Respondent: The learned counsel for the respondent- complainant has vehemently opposed the revision petition contending that:
SAURABH Digitally signed by
SAURABH PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH LALER
SINGH Date: 2026.01.05
LALER 17:41:02 +0530
DLND010030552025 Page 4 of 16
Cr Rev 231/2025
Skylark Muli State Cooperative Group
Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
(Sh. Nitya Sharma, Director)
Vs.
Devi Prasad Semwal
(a) The proceedings under Section 138 NI Act are criminal in nature and not covered by the expression "other legal proceedings" under Section 117(2) of the MSCS Act, 2002 ;
(b) The principles laid down in P. Mohanraj are squarely applicable to the present case ;
(c) The MSCS Act, 2002 lacks a non-obstante clause and cannot override the special provisions of the NI Act, 1881 ;
(d) Section 138 proceedings are penal in character and aim at taking penal action for an offence already committed, not recovery of debt .
5. Issues for Consideration The primary issue for determination is whether proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be said to fall within the ambit of "other legal proceedings" as contemplated under Section 117(2) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, thereby warranting stay during liquidation proceedings?
6. Analysis and Reasoning Relevant Statutory Provisions: Before delving into the merits, it is pertinent to reproduce the relevant statutory provisions:
(a) Section 117(2) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002:
"While a Multi-State Co-operative Society is being wound up, no suit or other legal proceedings relating to the business of such society shall be proceeded with or instituted against the liquidator or against the society or any member SAURABH Digitally signed by SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.05 LALER 17:41:12 +0530 DLND010030552025 Page 5 of 16 Cr Rev 231/2025 Skylark Muli State Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
(Sh. Nitya Sharma, Director) Vs. Devi Prasad Semwal thereof, except by leave of the Central Registrar and subject to such terms and conditions as he may impose."
(b) Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 14(1) provides for moratorium and states:
"(a) the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority;
(b) transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein;
(c) any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property..."
(c) Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: This section creates a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both, where a cheque drawn by a person is returned by the bank unpaid due to insufficiency of funds.
7. The Landmark Judgment of P. Mohanraj vs. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd.: The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Mohanraj (supra), while dealing with the interplay between Section 14 of the IBC, 2016 (moratorium provision) and proceedings under Section 138/141 of the NI Act, held as follows:
(a) Para 77 :
77. As far as the Directors/persons in management or control of the corporate debtor are concerned, a Section 138/141 proceeding against them cannot be initiated or continued without the corporate debtor - see Aneeta Hada (supra).
This is because Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act speaks of persons SAURABH Digitally signed by SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.05 17:41:25 +0530 LALER DLND010030552025 Page 6 of 16 Cr Rev 231/2025 Skylark Muli State Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
(Sh. Nitya Sharma, Director) Vs. Devi Prasad Semwal in charge of, and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company. The Court, therefore, in Aneeta Hada (supra) held as under:
"51. We have already opined that the decision in Sheoratan Agarwal [(1984) 4 SCC 352 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 620] runs counter to the ratio laid down in C.V. Parekh [(1970) 3 SCC 491 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 97] which is by a larger Bench and hence, is a binding precedent. On the aforesaid ratiocination, the decision in Anil Hada [(2000) 1 SCC 1 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 174] has to be treated as not laying down the correct law as far as it states that the Director or any other officer can be prosecuted without impleadment of the company. Needless to emphasise, the matter would stand on a different footing where there is some legal impediment and the doctrine of lex non cogit ad impossibilia gets attracted."
xxx xxx xxx "
56. We have referred to the aforesaid passages only to highlight that there has to be strict observance of the provisions regard being had to the legislative intendment because it deals with penal provisions and a penalty is not to be imposed affecting the rights of persons, whether juristic entities or individuals, unless they are arrayed as accused. It is to be kept in mind that the power of punishment is vested in the legislature and that is absolute in Section 141 of the Act which clearly speaks of commission of offence by the company. The learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently urged that the use of the term "as well as" in the Section is of immense significance and, in its tentacle, it brings in the company as well as the Director and/or other officers who are responsible for the acts of the company and, therefore, a prosecution against the Directors or other officers is tenable even if the company is not arraigned as an accused. The words "as well as" have to be understood in the context."
xxx xxx xxx "58. Applying the doctrine of strict construction, we are of the considered opinion that commission of offence by the company is an express condition precedent to attract the vicarious liability of others. Thus, the words "as well as the company" appearing in the Section make it absolutely unmistakably clear that when the company can be prosecuted, then only the persons mentioned in the other categories could be vicariously liable for the offence subject to the averments in the petition and proof thereof. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that the company is a juristic person and it has its own respectability. If a finding is SAURABH Digitally signed by SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.05 LALER 17:41:33 +0530 DLND010030552025 Page 7 of 16 Cr Rev 231/2025 Skylark Muli State Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
(Sh. Nitya Sharma, Director) Vs. Devi Prasad Semwal recorded against it, it would create a concavity in its reputation. There can be situations when the corporate reputation is affected when a Director is indicted.
59. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraigning of a company as an accused is imperative. The other categories of offenders can only be brought in the drag-net on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the same has been stipulated in the provision itself. We say so on the basis of the ratio laid down in C.V. Parekh [(1970) 3 SCC 491 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 97] which is a three-Judge Bench decision. Thus, the view expressed in Sheoratan Agarwal [(1984) 4 SCC 352 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 620] does not correctly lay down the law and, accordingly, is hereby overruled. The decision in Anil Hada [(2000) 1 SCC 1 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 174] is overruled with the qualifier as stated in para 51. The decision in Modi Distillery [(1987) 3 SCC 684 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 632] has to be treated to be restricted to its own facts as has been explained by us hereinabove."
Since the corporate debtor would be covered by the moratorium provision contained in Section 14 of the IBC, by which continuation of Section 138/141 proceedings against the corporate debtor and initiation of Section 138/141 proceedings against the said debtor during the corporate insolvency resolution process are interdicted, what is stated in paragraphs 51 and 59 in Aneeta Hada (supra) would then become applicable. The legal impediment contained in Section 14 of the IBC would make it impossible for such proceeding to continue or be instituted against the corporate debtor. Thus, for the period of moratorium, since no Section 138/141 proceeding can continue or be initiated against the corporate debtor because of a statutory bar, such proceedings can be initiated or continued against the persons mentioned in Section 141(1) and (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This being the case, it is clear that the moratorium provision contained in Section 14 of the IBC would apply only to the corporate debtor, the natural persons mentioned in Section 141 continuing to be statutorily liable under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
(b) This Court observes that the ratio decidendi in P. Mohanraj squarely applies to the present case. Though the said judgment dealt with Section 14 of the IBC, 2016, the legal principles articulated therein are of universal application when determining whether criminal proceedings SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.05 LALER 17:41:42 +0530 DLND010030552025 Page 8 of 16 Cr Rev 231/2025 Skylark Muli State Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
(Sh. Nitya Sharma, Director) Vs. Devi Prasad Semwal under Section 138 NI Act fall within the purview of moratorium or stay provisions.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka vs. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd., (2023) 10 SCC 545, further clarified the position:
(a) Para 16:
"We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the scope and nature of proceedings under the two Acts are quite different and would not intercede each other. Infact, a bare reading of Section 14 of the IBC would make it clear that the nature of proceedings which have to be kept in abeyance do not include criminal proceedings, which is the nature of proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. We are unable to appreciate the plea of the learned counsel for the Appellant that because Section 138 of the N.I. Act proceedings arise from a default in financial debt, the proceedings under Section 138 should be taken as akin to civil proceedings rather than criminal proceedings. We cannot lose sight of the fact that Section 138 of the N.I. Act are not recovery proceedings. They are penal in character. A person may face imprisonment or fine or both under Section 138 of the N.L. Act. It is not a recovery of the amount with interest as a debt recovery proceedings would be. They are not akin to suit proceedings."
(b) Para 75:
"...the complainant approaches the criminal court not for recovery of the legally enforceable debt, but for taking penal action under Section 138 of the NI Act for the offence already committed by the accused by not making the payment of the cheque amount despite the receipt of the statutory notice. The only question before the criminal court is whether the cheque issued by the accused towards the discharge of his liability was dishonoured and despite the service of demand notice, whether he had not paid the amount. There is no bar contained in any of the provisions of the IBC, and the NI Act from approaching the criminal court to seek penal action under Section 138 of the NI Act."
(c) Para 52:
"Thus, where the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act had already commenced and during the pendency the plan is approved or the company SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.05 LALER 17:41:52 +0530 DLND010030552025 Page 9 of 16 Cr Rev 231/2025 Skylark Muli State Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
(Sh. Nitya Sharma, Director) Vs. Devi Prasad Semwal gets dissolved, the Directors and the other accused cannot escape from their liability by citing its dissolution. What is dissolved is only the company, not the personal penal liability of the accused covered under Section 141 of the NI Act."
9. Interpretation of Section 117(2) MSCS Act, 2002:
(a) A close reading of Section 117(2) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 reveals that the bar is imposed on " suit or other legal proceedings relating to the business of such society" .
(b) The expression "other legal proceedings" must be interpreted ejusdem generis with "suit" and must relate to civil proceedings concerning the business of the society. The criminal proceedings under Section 138 NI Act do not relate to the "business" of the society but relate to the dishonour of a cheque issued by the society, which is a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment .
10.The proceedings under Section 138 NI Act are triggered when:
(a) A cheque is dishonoured;
(b) A statutory notice demanding payment is issued;
(c) The drawer fails to pay within 15 days of receipt of notice .
11. At that moment, the offence is complete. The complainant approaches the criminal court not for recovery of debt but for taking penal action against the accused for an offence already committed .
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.05 LALER 17:42:02 +0530 DLND010030552025 Page 10 of 16 Cr Rev 231/2025 Skylark Muli State Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
(Sh. Nitya Sharma, Director) Vs. Devi Prasad Semwal
12.Distinction from Governor General in Council vs. Shiromani Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra):
(a) The Revisionists have placed reliance on Governor General in Council vs. Shiromani Sugar Mills Ltd., AIR 1946 FC 16. However, this reliance is misplaced.
(b) The said judgment dealt with proceedings under the Income Tax Act for recovery of tax arrears as arrears of land revenue under Section 46 of the Income Tax Act . The Federal Court in that case held that such recovery proceedings were akin to civil proceedings and hence covered under "other legal proceedings" requiring leave of the court during winding up under Section 171 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 .
(c) The crucial distinction is that the Income Tax recovery proceedings in Shiromani Sugar Mills were essentially civil in character aimed at recovery of dues, whereas the proceedings under Section 138 NI Act are criminal in nature with the dominant object being penal action, which may result in imprisonment of up to two years .
(d) As rightly contended by the respondent, the present case involves proceedings under Section 138 NI Act which are of a criminal nature and may result in two years of imprisonment, unlike the civil recovery proceedings in Shiromani Sugar Mills (supra).
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.05 LALER 17:42:11 +0530 DLND010030552025 Page 11 of 16 Cr Rev 231/2025 Skylark Muli State Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
(Sh. Nitya Sharma, Director) Vs. Devi Prasad Semwal
13.Section 117(2) MSCS Act vis-à-vis Section 14 IBC - Comparative Analysis:
(a) It is significant to note that Section 117(2) of the MSCS Act, 2002 is more akin to Section 14 of the IBC, 2016 in terms of their legislative object and scope. Both provisions seek to create a moratorium or stay to protect the entity undergoing liquidation/resolution from pecuniary attacks during the critical period .
(b) However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held in P. Mohanraj (supra) that even the moratorium under Section 14 IBC (which has a non-obstante clause under Section 238 IBC giving it overriding effect) does not extend to criminal proceedings under Section 138 NI Act .
(c) If proceedings under Section 138 NI Act are not stayed even under the IBC regime which has an overriding non-obstante clause, a fortiori, such proceedings cannot be stayed under Section 117(2) of the MSCS Act, 2002 which conspicuously lacks any non-obstante clause .
14.Absence of Non-Obstante Clause:
(a) The MSCS Act, 2002 does not contain any non-obstante clause giving it overriding effect over other enactments. On the contrary, the NI Act, 1881 is a special and complete code in itself dealing with offences relating to dishonour of negotiable instruments.
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.05 LALER 17:42:20 +0530 DLND010030552025 Page 12 of 16 Cr Rev 231/2025 Skylark Muli State Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
(Sh. Nitya Sharma, Director) Vs. Devi Prasad Semwal
(b) It is a settled principle of interpretation that in the absence of a non- obstante clause, a general statute cannot override a special statute. The MSCS Act, 2002 being a statute dealing with regulation and winding up of cooperative societies cannot be construed to have overriding effect over the NI Act, 1881, which is a special enactment dealing with criminal offences under the Act .
15.Penal Liability of Natural Persons:
(a) Section 141 of the NI Act fastens vicarious liability on persons who, at the time the offence was committed, were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company/society. The Revisionist No. 2, Nitya Sharma, was the signatory to the cheque and an officer of the society .
(b) Even if the society (Accused No. 1) is under liquidation, the personal penal liability of the natural person (Accused No. 2) under Section 141 NI Act survives. This principle has been consistently upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Mohanraj, Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka, and Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661.
16.Object and Purpose of Section 138 NI Act:
(a) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that Section 138 of the NI Act serves the purpose of strengthening the credibility of negotiable instruments and providing a remedy for dishonour of SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.05 LALER 17:42:29 +0530 DLND010030552025 Page 13 of 16 Cr Rev 231/2025 Skylark Muli State Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
(Sh. Nitya Sharma, Director) Vs. Devi Prasad Semwal cheques. The provision is designed to instill confidence in the efficacy of banking operations and mercantile transactions.
(b) Allowing the Revisionists to escape criminal liability merely on account of liquidation proceedings would defeat the very object and purpose of Section 138 NI Act and would send a wrong message that persons in charge of corporate entities/societies can dishonour cheques with impunity and then seek refuge under liquidation proceedings .
17.Moratorium Does Not Extinguish Liability:
(a) As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a moratorium provision does not extinguish any liability, civil or criminal, but only casts a shadow on proceedings already initiated and on proceedings to be initiated, which shadow is lifted when the moratorium period comes to an end.
(b) Thus, even assuming Section 117(2) MSCS Act creates a moratorium, it does not extinguish the criminal liability of the accused persons. At best, it may temporarily stay certain proceedings, but criminal proceedings under Section 138 NI Act would remain outside its purview.
18.Findings of the Trial Court:
(a) The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, after considering the submissions of both parties and relevant legal precedents, correctly held that:
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.05 LALER 17:42:36 +0530 DLND010030552025 Page 14 of 16 Cr Rev 231/2025 Skylark Muli State Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
(Sh. Nitya Sharma, Director) Vs. Devi Prasad Semwal "Section 117(2) of Multi State Cooperative Group Housing Societies, 2002 is not applicable in 138 N.I Act proceedings as proceedings u/s 138 of N.I. Act do not fall within the ambit of expression "other legal proceedings" as contemplated u/s 117(2) of Multi State Cooperative Group Housing Societies, 2002, the same being criminal proceedings and not recovery proceedings."
(b) The learned Magistrate further observed:
"Purpose of enactment of Section 138 of N.I. Act will be defeated in case, the court allows the present application. Moreover, members of the society cannot escape from their alleged liability."
19.This Court finds no infirmity in the reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Court. The order dated 29.01.2025 is legally sound, and in consonance with the binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
20.For the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the considered opinion that:
(a) Proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are criminal in nature and are not covered by the expression "other legal proceedings" under Section 117(2) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002;
(b) The ratio decidendi laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Mohanraj vs. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd., (2021) 6 SCC 258 is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, notwithstanding that it dealt with the IBC, 2016;
(c) Section 117(2) of the MSCS Act, 2002 being akin to Section 14 of the IBC, 2016 (moratorium provision), cannot be interpreted to stay criminal proceedings under Section 138 NI Act;
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.05 LALER 17:42:45 +0530 DLND010030552025 Page 15 of 16 Cr Rev 231/2025 Skylark Muli State Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
(Sh. Nitya Sharma, Director) Vs. Devi Prasad Semwal
(d) The judgment in Governor General in Council vs. Shiromani Sugar Mills Ltd., AIR 1946 FC 16 is distinguishable as it dealt with Income Tax recovery proceedings which are civil in character, whereas the present case involves criminal proceedings under Section 138 NI Act which may result in two years of imprisonment;
(e) The MSCS Act, 2002 lacks a non-obstante clause and cannot override the special provisions of the NI Act, 1881;
(f) The personal penal liability of natural persons under Section 141 NI Act survives even if the society is under liquidation;
(g) The learned Trial Court committed no error in dismissing the application filed by the Revisionists under Section 117(2) of the MSCS Act, 2002.
21. ORDER
(a) In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the present Criminal Revision Petition No. 231 of 2025 is dismissed, being devoid of merit.
(b) The order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act-03), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Criminal Case No. 4162/2019 is upheld and affirmed.
(c) The learned Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial in Criminal Case No. 4162/2019 in accordance with law.
SAURABH Digitally
by SAURABH
signed
PARTAP PARTAP SINGH
LALER
SINGH Date: 2026.01.05
LALER 17:42:53 +0530
DLND010030552025 Page 16 of 16
Cr Rev 231/2025
Skylark Muli State Cooperative Group
Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
(Sh. Nitya Sharma, Director)
Vs.
Devi Prasad Semwal
(d) Copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action.
(e) File be consigned to Record Room.
SAURABH Pronounced in open court on this PARTAP Digitally signed by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER 05th day of January, 2026 SINGH Date: 2026.01.05 17:43:01 +0530 LALER (Saurabh Partap Singh Laler) ASJ-05 New Delhi Patiala House Courts Delhi 05.01.2026