Uttarakhand High Court
WPCRL/1432/2025 on 20 March, 2026
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPCRL No. 1432 & 1530 of 2025
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal and Mr. Lalit Sharma, (through V.C.), Mr. Tribhuwan Phartiyal, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned AGA for the State.
3. Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the complainant.
4. Mr. Rajat Katyal, learned counsel for the Avantha Reality Ltd.
5. Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the complainant argued that petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hand and by suppressing the fact that they have already filed the Anticipatory Bail Application in the Sessions Court, present writ petition was filed and thereafter, urgency application was moved, then they procured interim order from the Coordinate Bench and immediately, thereafter, they withdrew the Anticipatory Bail Application, which was pending before the Sessions Judge. He pointed out that in the connected writ petition i.e. WPCRL No. 1432 of 2022 filed by Ms. Neerja Singh, false statement has been given in paragraph 17 of the writ petition, which read as under:
"17. That the petitioner has no concern with the company namely Pratt & Whitney and Avantha. She has no concern with the other co-accused persons. She has not received any amount from the respondent no. 4 and the other co-accused persons, hence, the impugned FIR against the petitioner is liable to be quashed."
6. He submits that in paragraph 17 she clearly stated that she has no concern with the company namely Pratt and Whitney and Avantha and she has no concern with co-accused and she has received no amount from respondent no. 4 - complainant. This statement as made paragraph 17 of the writ petition is completely misleading and false which is evident from the account statement of Ms. Neerja Singh, which is appended along with the counter affidavit as Annexure No. 1. By showing entry dated 18.03.2024, he further submits that there was regular transactions in between M/s Sai Ram Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Pratt and Whitney Agro Power. He further submits that not only this, even sale deed was executed by M/s Sai Ram Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. through its authorised signatory / Director Mr. Harish Yadav, son of Rajendra Prasad Yadav, who is one of the petitioner in connected writ petition i.e. WPCRL No. 1530 of 2025. In the said sale deed dated 22.05.2024, Ms. Neerja Singh is shown as purchaser no. 5 and the total sale consideration, as shown is Rs. 4,29,15,303/-. By referring this sale deed, he submits that it is clearly establish that Ms. Neerja Singh was in direct touch with the petitioners in the connected writ petition as well as Director of M/s Sai Ram Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Pratt and Whitney Agro Power.
7. Apart from this, he submits that a forged letter was prepared by the Pratt and Whitney on 06.09.2023 addressed to Avantha Reality Ltd. wherein the complainant is shown as nominee of Pratt and Whitney Agro Power. He submits that this letter was forged one since no consent of the complainant was obtained in order to divert the huge amount which the complainant paid i.e. Rs. 6.25 Crores to Avantha Reality Ltd. He submits that on the basis of this letter dated 06.09.2023, Avantha Reality Ltd. transferred the shares of Rs. 6.25 Crores in favour of Pratt and Whitney Agro Power.
8. Mr. Rajat Katyal, learned counsel for the Avantha Reality Ltd. submits that in fact, Avantha Reality Ltd., have to transfer the shares of Rs. 16.50 Crores and after this letter 06.09.2023, they transferred all shares including the share of Rs. 6.25 crores to Pratt and Whitney Agro Power but Pratt and as such, Whitney Agro Power should refund the amount to complainant.
9. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that letter dated 06.09.2023 was subsequently modified and the copy of the same has already been supplied to the learned counsel for the complainant.
10. Learned counsel for the Avantha Reality Ltd. submits that there is minor difference in both the letters with regard to figure of amount. Earlier it was Rs. 6 Crores but subsequently, it was modified to Rs. 6.25 Crores. Mr. Harish Yadav, who is present in the Court also admits that the complainant paid total amount of Rs. 18.35 crore and will refund but some time is required to fixe schedule of payment
11.
12. Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Sr. Advocate and Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from the contents of the FIR, no cognizable offence is made out and it is a fit case for quashing of the FIR. He further submits that from the FIR, it reveals that there is dispute with regard to certain money transactions and no document has been forged and at the most, it is a case of corporate liability.
13. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned AGA, on instructions, submits that petitioners of WPCRL No. 1530 of 2025 are not cooperating with the investigation and they have not turned up for recording of their statement.
14. Learned AGA shall get status of the further investigation on the next date.
15. List on 24.03.2026 at 02.15 p.m. for further arguments.
16. In the meantime, respondent no. 2 - SSP, Dehradun is directed to constitute a team to verify whether petitioners of WPCRL No. 1530 of 2025 have any control over any company.
17. Till next date of listing, petitioners are directed not to execute any sale deed and they will also not withdraw any amount from bank accounts except for routine expenditure.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 20.03.2026 SKS