The Moratorium Shield vs. Criminal Liability: Analyzing Section 14 of IBC and Its Impact on Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust Cases

June 18, 2025 aaditya.bhatt Corporate Law > The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code

Understanding the Intersection of Insolvency Protection and Criminal Prosecution in India’s Evolving Legal Landscape

Introduction

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) has fundamentally transformed India’s approach to financial distress resolution, introducing comprehensive mechanisms to balance the interests of debtors and creditors[1]. At the heart of this legislative framework lies Section 14 of IBC , which provides for a moratorium period that creates a protective shield around corporate debtors undergoing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)[2]. However, the intersection of this civil remedy with criminal law, particularly in cases involving offences of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and criminal breach of trust under Section 409, has created a complex legal matrix that requires careful judicial navigation.

The fundamental question that arises is whether the moratorium imposed under Section 14 of the IBC can serve as a barrier to criminal prosecution, especially when the underlying disputes appear to have predominantly civil characteristics. This analysis becomes particularly significant when examining the maintainability of First Information Reports (FIRs) filed for cheating and criminal breach of trust during the moratorium period, as courts must distinguish between genuine criminal conduct and civil disputes clothed in criminal garb.

Understanding Section 14 of the IBC

Legal Framework and Scope of Section 14

Section 14 of the IBC establishes the moratorium framework that comes into effect upon the admission of a CIRP application by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The provision states that the Adjudicating Authority shall declare a moratorium prohibiting specific actions against the corporate debtor. The moratorium encompasses four primary prohibitions under Section 14(1): the institution or continuation of suits and proceedings against the corporate debtor, transferring or disposing of assets by the corporate debtor, enforcement of security interests, and recovery of property in possession of the corporate debtor.

The Supreme Court in Swiss Ribbons Private Limited vs. Union of India emphasized that the moratorium provision serves to create a “calm period” for reorganization of business without being disturbed by litigation. This protective mechanism ensures that the corporate debtor gets breathing space to continue as a going concern and ultimately rehabilitate itself. The Court noted that any crack in this shield would have adverse consequences given the object of Section 14[8][9].

Duration and Exceptions

The moratorium period commences from the insolvency commencement date and continues until the approval of a resolution plan or liquidation order. However, the IBC provides specific exceptions under Section 14(3), including transactions notified by the Central Government and actions against guarantors of the corporate debtor. These exceptions demonstrate the legislature’s intent to balance the protective scope of the moratorium with legitimate interests of other stakeholders.

Criminal Proceedings and the Moratorium: Judicial Clarifications

The NCLAT Precedent in Shah Brothers Ispat

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Shah Brothers Ispat Private Limited vs. P. Mohanraj & Ors. delivered a landmark ruling clarifying that criminal proceedings are not covered under Section 14 of the IBC. The NCLAT specifically held that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could continue during the moratorium period. The tribunal reasoned that Section 138 is a penal provision empowering courts to impose imprisonment or fines, which cannot be considered proceedings for money claims.

The NCLAT’s analysis established that the moratorium under Section 14 is designed to prevent civil recovery actions rather than criminal prosecutions. The tribunal observed that while a company cannot be imprisoned, fines can be imposed, and directors can face imprisonment, these consequences fall outside the purview of Section 14’s protective scope[3][5].

Supreme Court’s Approach in Recent Decisions

The Supreme Court has consistently maintained the distinction between civil and criminal proceedings in the context of insolvency moratorium. In Rakesh Bhanot v. Gurdas Agro Pvt Ltd., the Court clarified that personal insolvency proceedings under the IBC do not bar criminal prosecution for offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court emphasized that criminal liability is personal and arises from statutory violations, not merely from civil debt obligations.

The Court’s interpretation of “any legal action or proceedings” in Section 96 of the IBC (applicable to individuals) was crucial, determining that this phrase relates to civil procedures for debt collection rather than criminal prosecutions. This reasoning extends logically to Section 14’s corporate moratorium provisions, maintaining consistency in the IBC’s treatment of criminal vs. civil proceedings[4][6].

Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust: Civil vs. Criminal Nature

Legal Elements of Section 420 IPC (Cheating)

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code deals with “cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property”[10]. The Supreme Court has established that for an offense under Section 420, three essential elements must be proven: deception of a person, fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver property, and mens rea or dishonest intention at the time of making the inducement. The Court has repeatedly emphasized that mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown at the inception of the transaction.

In the case cited as, the Supreme Court clarified that “to constitute an offence of cheating, merely committing a deceitful act is not sufficient unless the deceitful act dishonestly induced a person to deliver any property or any part of a valuable security, thereby resulting in loss or damage to the person.” This principle establishes a high threshold for converting civil disputes into criminal matters.

Criminal Breach of Trust Under Section 409 IPC

Section 409 of the IPC addresses criminal breach of trust by persons in positions of responsibility, including public servants, bankers, merchants, or agents. The offense requires that the accused be entrusted with property in their official capacity and subsequently commit breach of trust by dishonestly converting or misusing the property. The Supreme Court has distinguished between civil contractual obligations and criminal breach of trust, noting that the two offenses cannot coexist simultaneously in the same set of facts[11].

Distinguishing Civil and Criminal Disputes

The Supreme Court in various judgments has established guidelines for distinguishing between civil and criminal disputes[7]. In a recent decision, the Court emphasized that “criminal proceedings cannot be used to settle civil disputes” and that there must be clear evidence of fraudulent intent to invoke criminal law in property disputes. The Court in [7] observed that “the dispute between the parties was not only essentially of a civil nature but in this case the dispute itself stood settled later” and found “no criminal element” warranting prosecution.

Maintainability of FIRs During Moratorium Period

Supreme Court Guidelines on FIR Quashing

The Supreme Court has developed comprehensive guidelines for quashing FIRs in cases where criminal complaints arise from civil transactions[8]. In [8], the Court reiterated that “the High Court by exercising their inherent power must quash the prosecution based on the criminal complaint arising out of a civil transaction.” The Court emphasized that High Courts “must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature.”

The Supreme Court’s approach in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab established a balanced framework for determining when criminal proceedings can be quashed[12]. The Court held that while heinous crimes cannot be quashed despite settlement, “criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing”[12]. The Court specifically mentioned that offenses arising from “commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions” may be quashed when parties have resolved their disputes.

Commercial Disputes and Criminal Law Misuse

Recent judicial trends indicate increasing concern about the misuse of criminal law in commercial disputes[13][14]. The Rajasthan High Court in Rana Ram v. State of Rajasthan noted that “despite the dispute’s civil nature, an FIR was filed under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC” and found this to be “an abuse of police power”[13]. The Court emphasized the need for police to avoid registering FIRs in purely commercial disputes without conducting necessary preliminary inquiry[13].

However, the Supreme Court has also clarified that “mere institution of civil proceedings cannot act as a bar to investigation of cognisable offences”[14]. The Court observed that “simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract, that does not by itself clothe the court to conclude that civil remedy is the only remedy.” This balanced approach requires careful analysis of each case’s specific facts and circumstances[14].

The Interplay: Moratorium and Criminal Cases

Limited Scope of Moratorium Protection under Section 14

The judicial consensus establishes that the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC does not extend protection to criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court’s reasoning in recent cases demonstrates that the moratorium is designed to prevent civil recovery actions and debt enforcement, not to shield against criminal liability for statutory violations[6]. This interpretation preserves the deterrent effect of criminal law while allowing insolvency resolution to proceed unimpeded[4].

The Court in Saranga Anilkumar Aggarwal v. Bhavesh Dhirajlal Sheth held that “Section 96 of the IBC moratorium does not apply to criminal proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, as these are regulatory penalties for non-compliance with consumer laws”. This principle extends to other criminal proceedings, maintaining the distinction between civil debt resolution and criminal enforcement[6].

Practical Implications for Legal Practice

For legal practitioners and corporate entities, the interplay between Section 14 moratorium and criminal cases presents several practical considerations[1][15]. While the moratorium provides comprehensive protection against civil claims and debt recovery actions, it cannot be invoked as a defense against criminal prosecution for offenses committed during business operations[3][4]. This reality requires careful assessment of potential criminal liability separate from insolvency proceedings[15][4].

The misuse of criminal law in commercial disputes continues to be a concern, with courts increasingly scrutinizing FIRs filed primarily to recover commercial debts[8]. Legal practitioners must distinguish between genuine criminal conduct involving fraudulent intent and civil contractual disputes that may superficially appear to involve criminal elements[7].

Case Law Evolution and Judicial Balance under Section 14 of IBC

Evolution of Jurisprudence

The evolution of jurisprudence surrounding the moratorium and criminal proceedings reflects the judiciary’s efforts to balance competing interests[2][14]. The Supreme Court in Swiss Ribbons Private Limited vs. Union of India upheld the constitutional validity of the IBC while recognizing the need for clear boundaries between civil and criminal remedies. The Court’s approach demonstrates understanding of the economic imperatives underlying insolvency law while maintaining the integrity of criminal justice.

Recent Supreme Court decisions indicate a trend toward more stringent scrutiny of criminal complaints arising from commercial disputes[7][8]. The Court’s emphasis on identifying the “predominantly civil flavour” of disputes suggests a growing recognition that criminal law should not be used as a debt recovery mechanism.

Balancing Stakeholder Interests

The judicial approach to balancing stakeholder interests involves careful consideration of the nature and gravity of alleged offenses[12]. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh observed that courts must have “due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime” and “the social impact” when considering whether to quash criminal proceedings. This framework requires analysis of whether alleged criminal conduct represents genuine statutory violations or merely civil disputes in criminal garb.

Recommendations and Best Practices Under Section 14 of IBC

For Legal Practitioners

Legal practitioners representing corporate debtors should understand that while Section 14 moratorium provides comprehensive civil protection, it does not shield against criminal prosecution for statutory violations[3][4]. Careful assessment of potential criminal liability should be conducted separately from insolvency planning[15][4]. When defending against criminal complaints during moratorium periods, emphasis should be placed on demonstrating the civil nature of disputes and absence of fraudulent intent[7].

For Law Enforcement

Law enforcement agencies should exercise greater caution when registering FIRs in commercial disputes, ensuring proper preliminary inquiry to distinguish between civil contractual breaches and genuine criminal conduct. The Supreme Court’s guidance regarding the misuse of criminal law in commercial contexts requires careful application to prevent abuse of the criminal justice system[8].

For Courts and Tribunals

Courts should apply the established jurisprudence distinguishing between civil and criminal matters when evaluating cases during moratorium periods[7][12]. The framework established in Gian Singh and subsequent cases provides clear guidance for determining when criminal proceedings should be quashed due to their predominantly civil nature[12]. Regular training and awareness programs can help ensure consistent application of these principles.

Future Developments and Legislative Considerations

Potential Amendments to IBC

The ongoing evolution of IBC jurisprudence may necessitate legislative clarification regarding the scope of moratorium protection. While judicial decisions have established that criminal proceedings are not covered by Section 14, explicit statutory language could provide greater certainty for all stakeholders. Such amendments could clarify the boundaries between civil protection and criminal enforcement more definitively[2][7].

Harmonization with Criminal Law

The intersection of insolvency law and criminal law requires continued judicial and legislative attention to ensure harmonious operation. The Supreme Court’s recent decisions provide a framework for this harmonization, but ongoing refinement may be necessary as commercial practices evolve. The balance between protecting legitimate business reorganization and maintaining criminal law’s deterrent effect remains a critical consideration[4][6].

Conclusion

The relationship between Section 14 moratorium under the IBC and criminal proceedings involving cheating and criminal breach of trust represents a complex intersection of civil and criminal law that requires careful judicial navigation. The established jurisprudence clearly demonstrates that the moratorium’s protective scope does not extend to criminal proceedings, maintaining the distinction between civil debt recovery and criminal enforcement.

The Supreme Court’s consistent approach emphasizes that while the IBC provides comprehensive protection for corporate debtors against civil claims during the resolution process, it cannot serve as a shield against criminal liability for statutory violations. This principle preserves the integrity of both insolvency law and criminal justice while preventing the misuse of either system.

The maintainability of FIRs during moratorium periods depends fundamentally on whether the alleged conduct constitutes genuine criminal behavior or merely represents civil disputes clothed in criminal language. Courts must continue to apply rigorous analysis to distinguish between these categories, ensuring that criminal law serves its proper deterrent function while preventing its misuse as a debt recovery mechanism.

For legal practitioners, corporate entities, and law enforcement agencies, understanding these principles is crucial for proper application of both insolvency and criminal law. The evolving jurisprudence provides clear guidance for navigating this intersection while maintaining respect for the distinct objectives of civil resolution and criminal enforcement.

The future development of this area of law will likely involve continued judicial refinement of the boundaries between civil and criminal proceedings, with potential legislative intervention to provide greater statutory clarity. The ultimate goal remains achieving a balanced approach that protects legitimate business reorganization while maintaining the deterrent effect of criminal law in cases of genuine statutory violations.

As India’s economic landscape continues to evolve, the proper application of these principles will be essential for maintaining confidence in both the insolvency resolution process and the criminal justice system. The careful balance struck by the judiciary between these competing interests represents a significant achievement in harmonizing complex areas of law while serving the broader public interest.