JUDGMENT :

1. Vide above captioned four petitions, the petitioner seeks quashing of orders dated 16.3.2017, 25.06.2018 and 25.06.2020, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (NI Act).

2. The above captioned first petition [CRL.M.C.1779/2020] pertains to Complaint No.612304/206. The second captioned petition [Crl.M.C. 1782/2020] pertains to Complaint No. 611606/2016. The above captioned third petition [Crl.M.C. 1783/2020] pertains to Complaint No. 611608/2020. The fourth captioned petition [Crl.M.C. 1784/2020] pertains to Complaint No.612305/2016. Since the subject matter of these petitions pertain to four different complaints (henceforth referred to as the “complaints in question”) relating to one residential real estate project, namely, “Spire Woods”, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. These petitions have been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of orders dated 16.3.2017 and 25.06.2018, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate vide which petitioner has been summoned to face trial and by order dated 25.06.2020, Metropolitan Magistrate has framed Notices under Section 251 Cr.P.C and dismissed petitioner’s plea seeking discharge in the complaints in question.

4. Brief facts of the complaints are that petitioner- Major Surendra Kumar Huda and one other person, namely, Sunil Gandhi, are the Promoters/ Directors of M/S A N Buildwell (P) Ltd. (henceforth referred to as the “accused company”). Respondent/complainant has alleged that petitioner and one Mr.Ashish Gulati, induced him to invest in a residential real estate project, namely, “Spire Woods” located at Sector 103, Gurugram, Haryana and Builder Buyer Agreement and Agreement to Sell, both dated 27.03.2015 were executed between the accused company and the complainant and residential unit No. 102, in Tower 7 of the aforesaid project was allotted to the complainant. According to the complainant, in terms of aforesaid Agreement, respondent/complainant deposited Rs.45,25,331/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty One only) into the account of the accused company by way of RTGS. The Agreement to Sell in question provided respondent/complainant the “Buy Back Option’, which required accused company to buy back the rights, interests and entitlements of complainant’s unit and it could be exercised by the complainant/respondent by depositing the post dated cheques amounting to Rs.1,14,74,703/- issued by the accused company. The said amount of Rs.1,14,74,703/- was given to complainant/petitioner by way of four post dated cheques, which are detailed as under:-

5. In the complaint, respondent has alleged that in January, 2016, he came to know that the accused company was on the verge of liquidation and in March, 2016, he further came to know that a provisional Official Liquidator has been appointed under the orders of this Court, and finding that the residential project was nowhere near completion, respondent/complainant exercised the Buy Back Option and presented all the four afore-noted post dated cheques issued by the accused company in bank on 25.04.2016 for payment, which were returned unpaid for the reasons as under:-