Read the following and answer the questions below based on the relevant case laws and the applicable provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC, 2016") and the Regulations made thereunder in this regard

Read the following and answer the questions below based on the relevant case laws and the applicable provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC, 2016") and the Regulations made thereunder in this regard. Facts of the case Thakur Engineering Products Private Limited ["the company"] engaged in the business Industrial Machinery supplies. It got Machinery supplies worth ₹ 21,10,11,054/- from a supplier ('Respondent'), which was due and payable by the company. Several cheques were issued by the company in favour of the respondent towards amounts payable for supplies, all of which were returned dishonoured for the reason "funds insufficient". As a result, the respondent issued a statutory demand notice under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("NI Act"), calling upon the company and its three Directors, to pay the amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. Subsequently, two cheques for a total amount of ₹ 90,80,123/- presented by the respondent for encashment were returned dishonoured for the reason "funds insufficient". A second demand notice was therefore issued under the same Sections by the respondent, calling upon the company and the appellants to pay this amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. Since no payment was forthcoming pursuant to the two statutory demand notices, two criminal complaints, were filed by the respondent against the company and the appellants under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ["ACMM"]. Summons were issued by the ACMM to the company and the appellants in both the criminal complaints. Meanwhile, as a statutory notice under Section 8 of the IBC, 2016 had been issued by the respondent to the company, and an order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority admitting the application under Section 9 of the IBC and directing commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process with respect to the company, a moratorium in terms of Section 14 of the IBC was ordered. Pursuant thereto, the Adjudicating Authority stayed further proceedings in the two criminal complaints pending before the ACMM. In an appeal filed to the National Company Law Appellate, Tribunal ("NCLAT"), the NCLAT set aside this order, holding that Section 138, being a criminal law provision, cannot be held to be a "proceeding" within the meaning of Section 14 of the IBC, 2016. In an appeal filed before the Court, the Court ordered a stay of further proceedings in the two complaints pending before the learned ACMM. Subsequent thereto, since a resolution plan submitted by the promoters of the company had been approved by the committee of creditors, the Adjudicating Authority approved such plan as a result of which, the moratorium order ceased to have effect. It may only be added that at present, an application for withdrawal of approval of this resolution plan has been filed by the financial creditors of the company before the Adjudicating Authority. Equally, an application to extend time for implementation of this plan has been filed by the resolution applicant before the Adjudicating Authority. Both these applications have yet to be decided by the Adjudicating Authority. On the above background, referring the provisions of IBC, 2016 and applicable case laws answer following questions: In a case with similar facts, Supreme Court made a landmark decision, how does this decision affect the creditors who have initiated Section 138 proceedings against a company undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)?