Specific averments and proof of the accused's role in the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time are necessary to establish vicarious liability under section 141 NIA.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.

1. The present petitions have been filed under section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the complaint cases and the summoning orders vide which the petitioner has been summoned for the offence alleged under section 138 NIA. The respective complaint case numbers, summoning orders along with other details regarding each petition have been tabulated below for ease of reference:

2. Petitioner is an Indian citizen belonging to the legal profession and practicing before the Courts in Delhi since 2008.

3. Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as `accused company') is a private limited company having its registered office at Upper Ground Floor 8-9, Pragati Tower, Rajendra Place, New Delhi - 110008. The accused company was engaged in the business of construction and was developing a residential project namely, Canary Greens at Sector 73, Gurugram.The respondents herein are the complainant homebuyers who were allotted residential flats in the said project.

4. Briefly alleged the facts are that local brokers and associates of `Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd' (accused company) approached the complainants for investing in their upcoming residential project. Upon being induced, the complainants entered into separate but identical agreements with the company as per which the company was to deliver the possession of the flats within 36 months from the date of the execution of the agreements and were also entitled to a grace period of six months for unforeseen delays beyond its control. The complainants were allotted one residential flat each and due considerations were made. However, the company failed to give the possession of the flats within the stipulated time.

5. Upon failure to deliver the possession of the said flats, the complainants moved the Ld. NCDRC, whereby, vide order dated 31.01.2017, the company was directed to refund the entire amount taken from the complainants with respect to the flats that could not be delivered by the accused company along with service tax, VAT and simple interest @ 10% p.a. accrued thereon, within three months from the said order. Additionally, the company was also directed to pay the cost of litigation @ Rs. 10,000/- in each complaint.

6. Subsequently, the complainant homebuyers preferred execution applications for the enforcement of the order of the Ld. NCDRC, whereby, vide consent order, it was mutually decided that the accused company will repay the amounts due, in terms of the order of the Ld. NCDRC, by way of four equal installments.

7. In order to discharge the liability, Mr. Naveen Thakur and Mr. Rajesh Kumar (accused Nos. 4 and 5 in the complaints) acting for and on behalf of the accused company issued six (6) `At par' cheques in favor of each complainant. The cheques were to be honored at the time of presentation and upon this assurance, the complainants presented the first two cheques of Rs 5,00,000/- each, which were duly honored. However, when the subsequent 2 cheques dated 24.07.2019 were deposited amounting to Rs 10,00,000/- each, drawn on Indusland Bank, the same came to be dishonoured.

8. The complainants approached the accused persons/company on several occasions demanding for the re