NEERJA SINGH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (CRL) No. 1530 of 2025

Harish Yadav and Another. ………………… Petitioners.

Versus

State of Uttarakhand
and others. ……………Respondents.
With

Writ Petition (CRL) No. 1432 of 2025

Neerja Singh. ………………… Petitioner.

Versus

State of Uttarakhand
and others. ……………Respondents.

Present:
Mr. D.S. Patni, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, learned
counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner in the connected writ petition.
Mr. Rajat Katiyal, learned counsel for the respondent.
Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned G.A. with Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. with Mrs. Sweta
Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the complainant.

Judgment reserved on: 28.04.2026
Judgment delivered on: 03.06.2026
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. In these two writ petitions has been preferred for quashing

of First Information Report dated 14.09.2025 i.e. FIR No. 0181 of
2025 lodged by the informant Vikram Singh Rana, wherein, eight
namely
persons Rajkumar Yadav, Harish Yadav, Rajeev Vadra,
Sanjay Singh, Megha Bhardwaj, Bijju, Vinod Kumar and last one
Neerja Singh have been implicated for the offences punishable
under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w section 120-B of the IPC.
2. WPCRL No. 1530 of 2025 has been filed by two persons
namely Harish Yadav and Rajkumar Yadav. So far as another

2
petition i.e. WPCRL No. 1432 of 2025 is concerned, the same has
been filed by Ms. Neerja Singh.
3. At this juncture, it is essential to outline the factual matrix as
described in the FIR to clearly understand the context of these two
petitions.
4. The impugned FIR states that Harish Yadav and Rajkumar
Yadav the petitioners of WPCRL No. 1530 of 2025 make a
proposal to the complainant that a company namely “ Sai Ram
”, which deals with the business of real
Infram Projects Pvt. Ltd
estate owns several acres of land in Purukul will provide 25
bighas of land to the complainant, and all transactions on behalf
of the company they will handle and the land would be sold at the
rate of Rs. 50 lakhs per bigha. On such assurance and proposal the
complainant trust on them and an amount of Rs. 1.81 crore was
paid to them and after receiving the amount the complainant was
given the task to level the land for the purposes of development
and during this period the persons namely Rajeev Wadra, Sanjay
Singh, Megha Bhardwaj, Bijju, Vinod Kumar and Ms. Neerja came
at spot and informs to the complainant that their land is also
included in the said portion of 25 bigha of land and they all are
the representatives of the company namely “ Avanta Reality ” and
another one “ Prat and Whitney ” and they have shown certain
documents with regard to the mortgage of the land with the said
two companies.
5. It is further stated in the FIR that subsequently he came to
know that there are business transactions in between all these
companies i.e. “ Sai Ram Infra Project Pvt. Ltd .”, “ Avanta
Reality ” and “ Prat and Whitney ”. It is further alleged in the FIR
that the complainant paid substantial amount to the petitioners
Harish Yadav and Rajkumar Yadav, who infact have all effective

3
control over these companies particularly “Sai Ram Infra Projects
Pvt. Ltd.” and he has also spent substantial amount in leveling
and developing the land and therefore he was not in a position to
refuse their proposal since he has incurred crores of rupees in
leveling and developing the land.
It is further alleged that 10.10 crore were deposited in the
account of “ Prat and Whitney ” and Rs. 6.25 crore were also
transferred in the account of “Avanta Reality”.
It is further alleged in the FIR that in March, 2024 the
complainant came to know about certain disputes in between
these three companies, however, he has been informed that all
those issues have been resolved and shortly the sale deed will be
executed in favour of the complainant in the next financial year. In
April, 2024 on such assurance of executing sale deed the
complainant paid all stamp duty and TDS amount but they did
not turn up to execute the sale deed and when he contact them
they have not given any positive answer, even they did not picked
up his phone and then he came to know that infact he has been
cheated in an organized manner by these persons and the main
conspirator are Harish Yadav and Rajkumar Yadav and he also
came to know that these persons also forged some document
showing him as a nominee of the company in order to get 100
percent shareholding of “Avanta Reality” against the amount of
Rs. 6.25 crore, which he has paid to the company namley “Avanta
Reality” on their instance.
FIR further states that Rajkumar Yadav, one of the
petitioners, who is the resident of Gurgaon (Haryana) have
criminal antecedents committed similar fraud with several others
and he projected himself that he has close relations with higher

4
officials and also project himself to be holding a high ranking
post.
6. Mr. D.S. Patni, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Lalit
Sharma and Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, who appears for the
petitioners in WPCRL No. 1530 of 2025 submits that all the
allegations as alleged in the impugned FIR are fake and frivolous.
He also submits that the petitioner Harish Yadav was not
associated with the company namely “M/s Sai Ram Infra Projects
Pvt. Ltd.” in any manner during the period of transaction since he
was inducted as a Director on 19.04.2024, whereas all payments
were made prior to that, therefore, he cannot be treated to be an
instrumental for all these transactions.

In reference to petitioner no. 2 Rajkumar Yadav Mr. Patni
submits that he has no concern with all these companies in any
manner and has been falsely implicated.
7. Learned senior counsel further submits that infact the
informant is the property dealer and associated with the
company namely M/s Sai Ram Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. as a broker,
which owns land in Village Purukul of District Dehradun and the
informant being a property dealer want to purchase some land
from the company and agreed to be act as a nominee of M/s Sai
Ram Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., which is subsidiary of M/s Avanta
Reality Ltd. and M/s Prat and Whitney , and on his instance M/s
Sai Ram Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. sold substantial part of land to
the different buyers and while executing all those sale deeds the
informant act as a broker.
Mr. Patni argued that all the allegations as alleged in the
impugned FIR are false and frivolous and infact on 19.12.2024 the
complainant uploaded a video in social media, wherein, he was

5
giving threatening to commit suicide and soon thereafter the
S.S.P., Dehradun, gives a press statement in the media that
grievance of the informant has been enquired from the local
police and it was found that the dispute in between informant
with the companies are purely civil in nature.
He submits that when the petitioners came to know about
the video clip as uploaded by the informant in the social media
immediately a legal notice was given to the informant on
28.08.2025 asking him to tender unconditional apology and to
remove the video clip from social media and to pay damages of
Rs. 5 crores.

8. Mr. Patni also submits that in the impugned FIR there is no

disclosure about any forged documents and even otherwise the
impugned FIR does not discloses any cognizable offence and, as
such, the same is liable to be quashed.
9. Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel who appears for the
petitioner of WPCRL No. 1432 of 2025 submits that the impugned
FIR does not discloses any cognizable offence against the
petitioner Ms. Neeraj Singh and she has been implicated with the
sole object of harassment and she has no concern in any manner
either with all these companies or with the co-accused Harish
Yadav and Rajkumar Yadav.
Mr. Kothari further submits that the petitioner neither
received any amount from the informant nor from other co-
accused and, as such, the impugned FIR qua the petitioner is
liable to be quashed.
10. Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for caveator/informant
filed counter affidavit along with the stay vacation application
and raised a preliminary objection that the petitioners of both

6
these writ petitions have not approached with clean hands and
suppressed material facts.
Mr. Garg submits that the impugned FIR was registered on
14.09.2025 and immediately thereafter in order to get anticipatory
bail petitioners approached to the Sessions Court and the
Sessions Court post the matter on 14.11.2025 since the
prosecution undertakes that they will not be arrested and during
the pendency of anticipatory bail before the Session Court
petitioners approach to this court and filed writ petition on
24.11.2025 without disclosing about pending anticipatory bail,
wherein, Coordinate Bench on 26.11.2025 invited objections on or
before 29.12.2025 and the matter was posted on 29.12.2025. He
submits that though already 29.12.2025 was fixed but much
before that an urgency application was moved that there is an
apprehension of arrest and the said urgency application came up
before the Coordinate Bench on 09.12.2025 and on the same date
the interim protection was granted and immediately thereafter on
the next date i.e. on 10.12.2025 they withdraw their pending
anticipatory bail application from the Session Court. He submits
that since petitioners have suppressed about pending
anticipatory bail applications and as such they have not approach
with clean hands and on this account alone their petitions
deserves to be dismissed with costs.
11. Previously the matter was heard on different dates and on
11.03.2026 Mr. D.S. Patni, learned senior counsel, placed before
this court 21 sale deeds in order to show that entire money has
been paid to the informant. Copy of all those 21 sale deeds were
also supplied to Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the
informant and on their request the matter was posted for another
date so that Mr. Garg may go through with all those sale deeds

7
and make his submissions whether informant received any
amount. By those 21 sale deeds total area admeasuring 46.84
bighas were sold out to different buyer with the total sale
consideration of Rs. 50,61,08,385/- cr. (Fifty crore sixty one lakh
eight thousand three hundred eighy five).
12. On 20.03.2026 one of the petitioner Harish Yadav was
present in court and admits that the informant paid in total Rs.
18.35 crore and also undertakes to refund the same within
reasonable time.

On that day Mr. Rajat Katiyal, learned counsel also advance
his submissions on behalf of M/s Avanta Reality and also submit
written synopsis and argued that “M/s Avanta Reality” received
6.25 Cr. from informant Vikram Singh Rana and against 6.25 cr.
“M/s Avanta Reality” transferred 100 percent shareholding to
M/s Sai Ram Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. since informant was shown
as their nominee in one of letter dated 06.09.2023, which was
subsequently modified.
On 24.03.2026 Mr. D.S. Patni submits that the statement as
given by Mr. Harish Yadav on the previous date about receipt of
Rs. 18.35 crore is not correct and now he is withdrawing his
statement about receipt of any such amount.
On such submission, Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for
for the informant and Mr. Rajat Katiyal, learned counsel for M/s
Avanta Reality raised a serious objection and submits that Mr.
Harish Yadav make a statement about receipt of 18.35 crore and,
therefore, withdrawing such a statement are misleading though
as a matter of fact the break-up of amount as paid by informant
are based on account statement.

8
13. Since several affidavits have been filed by both the parties
raising allegations and counter allegations against each other so I
also gone through with all those affidavits.
Now, Mr. D.S. Patni further advance his submission on
subsequent affidavits that the informant committed several
irregularities under the RERA Act and sold the land of the
company without fulfilling the requirement under the RERA Act,
due to which the company was not intended to sell the land to
him. He also submits that the informant also committed fraud
with the different buyers and there is no written agreement to sell
the land to the informant, therefore, the allegations about paying
huge amount is false and even otherwise if the informant has any
grievances he should avail civil remedy.
14. Mr. Patni also submits that infact when the informant was
in direct touch with the company make some alteration in one of
the map attached with sale deed dated 10.01.2024 in which he
was shown as one of the witness. Mr. Patni drew attention of this
court to the altered map as well as the original map annexed with
the rejoinder affidavit. He submits that with regard to alteration
in map a written complaint was also made on 31.08.2025 but on
such complaint no FIR was registered. He also submits that in
total 27 sale deeds were executed out of which in 21 sale deeds
the informant was the witness and during execution of those sale
deeds informant received about Rs. 10.50 crore. Mr. Patni also
submits that the informant is highly influential person since he is
closely associated with the Ex Chief Minister of the State, which is
evident from his complaint made in C.M. portal.
Mr. Patni concluded his argument by submitting that there
is no pending dues and informant received entire money from

9
different buyers and, as such, impugned FIR is liable to quashed
since it does not discloses any cognizable offence.
15. Per contra Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the
informant, submits that all the averments as made in the
subsequent affidavits are misleading and false and the allegation
with regard to alteration in map is also completely misleading
and infact they are diverting the issue though in the said sale
deed he was simply a witness.
16. Mr. Garg also draw attention of this court to an affidavit of
informant filed on 16.04.2026 giving complete breakup of
payments alongwith the Account Statement and submits that the
break-up of payment as given with account statement clearly
reveals that in total Nineteen Crore One Lakh (19.01 cr.) were
paid by the informant, after June, 2023, though the account
statement as placed on record by the petitioners is only upto
17.03.2023, which has no relevance and deliberately no account
statement after June, 2023 are placed on record by the petitioners.
On perusal of account statement it reveals that in total Rs.
10.95 crore were paid to M/s Prat & Whitney and Rs. 6.25 cr. was
paid to M/s Avanta Reality. Mr. Garg also pointed out that in
addition to this, Rs. 1.65 crore were also paid to Mr. Rajkumar
Yadav in cash, which he admits through Whatsapp chat dated
06.03.2024, which is also shown to Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel
for the petitioner during the course of argument.
17. Mr. Neeraj Garg also submits that the arguments of Mr.
Patni that against 21 sale deeds huge amount were paid to the
informant is completely fallacious and misleading, which itself is
evident from 21 sale deeds on the basis of which a comparative
chart is also prepared and placed on record, which itself

10
establishes that entire sale consideration of more than Rs. 50
crores were credited in the account of M/s Sai Ram Infra Projects
Pvt. Ltd.
Mr. Garg submits that against Rs. 19.01 crore, neither land
was sold out to the informant nor the amount was returned and
even not a single document the petitioners bring on record with
regard to refund of any such amount. He submits that the
petitioner Harish Yadav make a statement on the previous date in
the court that they received the amount but want some
reasonable time to refund the same, but now he withdraw such
statement and, therefore, the petitioners are not fair with the
court and are misleading.
18. Mr. Garg also bring to the notice of this court a report of
preliminary enquiry conducted by Circle Officer before
registration of FIR, who record the statement of Rajkumar Yadav.
This preliminary enquiry report is part of record of WPCRL No.
1432 of 2025. The relevant extract of statement of Rajkumar
Yadav as pointed out by Mr. Garg is read as under:
“ iwNrkN ds nkSjku foi{kh jktdqekj ;kno }kjk dgk x;k gS fd rfeyukMq esa
foUMehy ds izkstsDV esa yxHkx dqy 30 djksM+ dh ykxr vkuh Fkh ftl gsrq
vkosnd fodze flag }kjk 16 djksM+ 35 yk[k dh /kujkf”k nh x;h gS fdUrq v cog
foUMehy ds izkstsDV ls eqdj jgk gS ;fn vkosnd fodze jk.kk foUMehy izkstsDV
dks iwjk djrk gS rks eSa iqjdqy fLFkr Hkwfe dh jftLVªh vkosnd ds uke ij dj
nwaxk ;fn fodze jk.kk ,slk ugha djrk gS rks eSa dsoy mldks Hkwfe ds 1 djksM+ 81
yk[k Hkwfe dh /kujkf”k okil d:axkA ”
19. Mr. Garg also submits that both the petitioners Mr. Harish
Yadav and Rajkumar Yadav have all effective control over all
these companies and prepared a forged document by showing
informant as a nominee of the company to M/s Avanta Reality to
whom the informant paid Rs. 6.25 crore against which M/s
Avanta Reality transferred 100 percent share holding to M/s Sai
Ram Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.

11
20. In reference to WPCRL No. 1432 of 2025 Mr. Neeraj Garg
submits that the petitioner Ms. Neerja Singh gives a false
statement on an affidavit that neither she is the Director nor the
Manager in any of the company and she has no concern with the
other co-accused though as a matter of fact that there are two
registered sale deeds dated 17.05.2024 and 22.05.2024, which were
executed by M/s Sai Ram Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., wherein she is
one of the co-purchaser, which are also placed on record through
an affidavit.
Mr. Garg further submits that another document is the
Account Statement of Ms. Neerja Singh, which itself reflects
several transactions of the petitioner Ms. Neerja Singh with M/s
Sai Ram Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Prat & Whitney. By showing
these documents Mr. Garg submits that the petitioner has direct
nexus with the other co-accused but these documents has been
suppressed by her, wherein, show that she is neither the Director
nor in any official capacity in these companies and the amount,
which she received, was in the form of unsecured loan.
21. On the other side, Mr. Katiyal on behalf of M/s Avanta
Reality admits this fact that M/s Avanta Reality Ltd. received Rs.
6.25 cr. from informant and in lieu thereof 100 percent share
holding was transferred to M/s Sai Ram Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.
only on an impression that the informant is nominee of M/s Sai
Ram Infra though subsequently it was informed that he is not
nominee but by that time 100 percent share were aleady
transferred.
He further submits that in the letter wherein informant is
shown as nominee there was reference of one another person
namely Aadesh Chauhan, who also paid Rs. 1.50 cr. who also in
his statement apprised to Investigating Officer that Mr. Rajkumar

12
Yadav is the key figure to victimize him also. He submits that
since now in lieu of Rs. 6.25 cr. the Avanta Reality transferred 100
percent share holding to M/s Sai Ram, therefore, M/s Sai Ram
Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd, which is completely under control of
Harish Yadav and Rajkumar Yadav are responsible and not the
M/s Avanta Reality.
22. Mr. Vipul Sharma, who represents the company namely
“ Prat & Whitney” submits that this company has no concern in
any manner since admittedly entire transaction is in between
M/s Sai Ram, M/s Avanta Reality and informant, which is
denied by Mr. Neeraj Garg by showing account statement.
23. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. for the State submits

that infact before registration of FIR a preliminary enquiry was
conducted by the Circle Officer and the statements of Mr.
Rajkumar Yadav was also recorded, wherein, he admits about
receiving of substantial amount from the informant. He submits
that during investigation it reveals that both the petitioners have
effective control over all these companies i.e M/s Sai Ram Infra
Projects Pvt. Ltd. and it’s subsidiary i.e. Avanta Reality Ltd. as
well as “Prat & Whitney” and the investigation also reveals that
the petitioners induces the complainant to invest the huge
amount and the letter dated 06.09.2023, wherein, informant has
been shown as nominee found to be a manipulated and forged
document, which was prepared only in order to get 100 percent
shareholding of M/s Avanta Reality in lieu of 6.25 cr. paid by
informant to M/s Avanta Reality and FIR cannot be quashed
since after full fledged preliminary enquiry of C.O. (Circle) it was
registered and now the investigation is going on.
24. Heard the arguments at length and perused the records.
Earlier also matter was heard at length and on one such occasion

13
Mr. Patni, learned senior counsel also proposes that let the parties
may sit together in order to resolve the dispute and this court
gives that opportunity also but no settlement could be arrived,
therefore there is no option except to proceed and decide the
matter on its own merit.
25. First of all the issue as raised by Mr. Neeraj Garg that the
petitioners have not approached with clean hands since they have
not disclosed about pending anticipatory bail application before
the Session Court.
In this regard, Mr. Patni, learned senior counsel submits
that there is no bar in availing both the remedies i.e. writ petition
for quashing of FIR as well as for seeking anticipatory bail, but,
the fact remains why they have not disclosed about pending
anticipatory bail in Session Court in this petitions and why such
an impression was given by moving an urgency application to
the Coordinate Bench that there is an apprehension of arrest
when prosecution already gives an assurance in the pending
anticipatory bail application that they will not be arrested and
then why on the next date they withdraw their anticipatory bail
application from the Session Court after grant of interim
protection from this court. It is the duty of a litigant to approach
with clean hands. No doubt interim orders are discretionary
remedies and courts grants interim reliefs relying them on the
honesty and transparency of the litigant and if a party
deliberately withholds a document or misrepresents the truth,
they are guilty of suppression. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
catena of judgments has established that transparency is critical
and failing to disclose relevant factors warrants immediate
refusal of relief. Thus, this court is of the view that interim order

14
of protection was obtained by the petitioner by way of
misrepresentation.
26. In addition to this, Mr. Neeraj Garg submits that in WPCRL
No. 1432 of 2025 the petitioner gives false statement that she has
no concern with the other co-accused. In the counter affidavit the
informant placed on record two sale deeds and the account
statement and after gone through with those documents what
this court observed that there is regular transaction in between
the petitioner and the companies which are under the direct
control of the co-accused. Furthermore, the petitioner Ms. Neerja
also tendered unconditional apology for giving such a statement
in her subsequent affidavit.
27. So far as impugned FIR is concerned, the dispute prima-
facie relates to money transactions. The petitioners denied about
any such transaction, however, the informant placed on record
the account statement as well as complete break-up of transaction
and even one of the petitioner Mr. Rajkumar Yadav also admits
in his statement before the Circle Officer, who conducted the
preliminary enquiry and even another petitioner Mr. Harish
Yadav also make a statement before this court about receipt of Rs.
18.35 cr. and also undertakes to refund within reasonable time.
Not only this, even on 11.03.2026, 21 sale deeds were shown
by Mr. Patni in order to show that informant being a broker of the
company received entire amount from the buyers, but as a matter
of fact entire sale consideration of more than 50 crore were
credited in the account of M/s Sai Ram Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Now, what this court has observed that the petitioners are
taking contradictory stand since on the one hand they are saying
no amount has been received by them and on the other side they

15
are saying that the informant received entire money, though as a
matter of fact as per the break-up and account statement as
produced by informant and also as per their admission huge
substantial amount has been received by the petitioners.
Apart from this it is an admitted fact that Rs. 6.25 crore was
transferred by informant to M/s Avanta Reality, and in lieu
thereof 100 percent share holding was transferred to M/s Sai
Ram Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. by projecting informant as nominee
by letter dated 06.09.2023, which was found to be a manipulated
document as pointed by learned A.G.A. Therefore, this court is of
the firm opinion that taking contradictory stand by the
petitioners appears to be a misleading approach and therefore
this court held that the petitioners are disentitled to get any relief.
28. One more submission as advanced by Mr. Patni that the
informant being broker of a company make an alteration in the
map in one of the sale deed appears to be a concocted story and
have no relevance to the issue in hand and even otherwise the
informant was only a witness in the said sale deed.
29. So far as the submission of Mr. Patni that the dispute
prima-facie appears to be civil in nature cannot be accepted when
the petitioners are taking repeatedly contradictory stand and
misleading approach in this regard.
30. In view of the discussion and observation as above,
admittedly the petitioners have not approached with clean hands
and also suppressed the material facts and their approach
appears to be misleading, therefore both the writ petitions are
dismissed being devoid of merit with the cost of Rs. 2 lakhs in
WPCRL No. 1530 of 2025 and Rs. 50,000/- in WPCRL No. 1432 of

16
2025 to be deposited in the Advocates Welfare Fund within a
month. Interim orders are also stand vacated.


(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)


03.06.2026
PR