IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, LUCKNOW

IN RE:
Criminal Misc. Case No. 266 / 2024

VIVEK YADAV......................................................... RESPONDENT NO. 2

IN RE:

PRASHANT SINGH................................................................APPLICANT
versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER............RESPONDENTS

Case No.–18415 / 2023

Crime No.–572 / 2021
U/s–409 / 420 IPC
PS–Vibhuti Khand
District–Lucknow
Pending in the Court of the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate–II, Lucknow

REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 2, TO THE

APPLICATION FOR RELEASE OF ACCOUNT FILED ON BEHALF
OF THE ACCUSED, PRASHANT SINGH

The Respondent Vivek Yadav, most humbly begs to submit as under:

1. That the Respondent has gone through and understood the contents of
the ‘Application for Release of account’, filed before this Hon’ble Court,
on behalf of the Accused, namely Prashant Singh, and is giving a para–
wise reply to the same hereinbelow.
2. That at the outset, it is submitted that unless specifically admitted herein,
the contents of the ‘Release Account Application’ may not be deemed to
be admitted for the reasons of non–traverse. All allegations levelled
therein against the Respondent are denied as incorrect, misconceived,
baseless and false. The Respondent also reserves his right to bring on
record additional pleas / documents before this Hon’ble Court (if need
be).

3. That in reply to the contents of paragraph nos. 1 to 6 of the Release of

Account Application, it is submitted that the Accused has chosen to
deliberately conceal certain relevant facts pertaining to the matter and as
such, is consciously trying to mislead this Hon’ble Court. As a matter of
fact, at the relevant point in time, when the cheating / fraud / forgery /
theft of shares, etc. was committed by the Accused, other directors were
unaware of the fraud happening behind them. It would be of utmost
importance to bring certain facts to this Hon’ble Court’s attention at this
stage, which are as follows:

a. That the allegations put by the accused on Vandana

Yadav and Vivek Yadav seem to be a mere
counterblast as the forged signatures for transferring the
shares into the accused account was made. Vandana
Yadav, another director who had resigned from her
position on 16.02.2018 has mentioned the fraudulent
transfer of 7000 shares into the account of Vivek
Kumar Singh, another accused of the case by means of
forged signatures and access of password to all
accounts. The Accused has also manipulated the offices
of MCA and ROC, by getting incorrect data entered in
their records. These allegations have been investigated
and related documents have been brought on record by
the Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred as “IO”)
inter–alia in Case Diary 8, 9, 10, 24 and 40 of the
captioned case.

b. The Accused, Prashant Singh misused his position as a

director of PPTPL and JBTCPL and fraudulently
transferred 98% shares of JBTCPL in his favour: (i)
without giving any information of the share transfer to
the Board of Directors of PPTPL, (ii) without getting
approval from the Board of PPTPL, (iii) without paying
 the consideration amount for the shares in question, and
(iv) without execution of any Share Transfer Deed,
which is also against the provisions of the Companies
Act, 2013. The Accused forged the signatures of the
directors / shareholders of PPTPL to get the data (on
MCA / ROC portals) related to JBTCPL changed,
committing forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust
and theft of the shares of JBTCPL, besides committing
other offences under law.

c. The shares of JBTCPL were transferred illegally on

18.02.2018, without any Share Transfer Deed having
been executed and without any consideration having
been paid for the alleged transfer. The Accused, being a
director of PPTPL, was the custodian of its assets,
including the shares of the company and its subsidiaries
but he surreptitiously transferred the shares to himself,
which clearly makes out the commission inter–alia of
offences under Section 409 and 420 IPC.

4. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no. 7 of the Release of

Account Application, it is being reiterated that the case filed by Vandana
Yadav is counterblast and holds no true position. Where it is to be
mentioned that instant case was first filed by the respondent upon
knowledge of the fraud made but rather five FIR(s) were filed by the
Accused of the instant case against the Respondent and his business
associates in counterblast of the FIR of the instant case. As a matter of
fact, it is clarified that the FIR of the instant case was lodged on
26.10.2021 and the five FIR(s) lodged by the accused, Prashant Singh,
were registered on 14.11.2021 / 15.11.2021 (within a span of 24 hours).
it is submitted that the two FIRs which are referred by the Accused in the
paragraph under reply, are two of the five FIRs, which were lodged by
the Accused in a span of 24 hours, in counterblast to the FIR of the
instant case (thereby falsely implicating the Respondent and his business
associates, on the basis of a fabricated story, as already threatened by
him earlier time and again), on 14.11.2021 / 15.11.2021, against the
Respondent & other directors / shareholders of PPTPL, bearing numbers:
Crime No. 894 / 2021 (in which the Respondent of this case was made
an accused), Crime No. 896 / 2021, Crime No. 897
/ 2021 (a Closure Report was filed in this FIR as the facts were identical
to the facts of Crime No. 894 / 2021), Crime No. 898 / 2021 (in which
the
 Respondent of this case was once again made an accused), and Crime
No. 899 / 2021.
It is further submitted that the Respondent and other co-accused
persons in the aforesaid FIR(s) exercised their legal remedies under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and sought quashing of the
FIR(s) before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, sitting
at Lucknow, by means of filing Writ Petition(s). The Hon’ble High
Court, at the stage of admission, vide an order dated 30.11.2021, granted
protection to the Respondent and others, while referring to its detailed
order dated 30.11.2021, passed in Writ Petition No. 27486 (MB) of
2021, titled as ‘Vandana Yadav & others versus State of UP & others’
(filed in connection with Crime No.–898 / 2021, PS–Gomti Nagar). The
Hon’ble High Court, after considering the case of the Respondent and
others, formed a prima facie opinion that the case warrants
consideration.

5. That the contents of paragraph no. 8 of the Release of Account

Application are denied, being false and incorrect. In reply, it is submitted
that the Accused has very casually stated that there cannot be a cross–
case between the parties, under Sections 409 / 420 / 467 / 468 / 471 IPC,
however, he has failed to bring on record any legal / logical basis, in
support of the said frivolous submission.

6. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no. 9 and 10 of the Release of

Account Application, it is clearly mentioned by the respondent in the
Case Diary 4 and 5 made by the police that Vandana Yadav who had
resigned from the Director Position on 16.02.2018 never received any
shares whereas, a forged document was prepared by the Accused and his
associates to escape the consequences and thereby mentioning another
Vandana Singh with the same signature as of the Respondent without the
consent and knowledge of the Respondent. It was later known that all the
transfers of the Respondent were made into another account of the
accused. Further, the Respondent while registering her statement
provided the bank accounts related to fraud transfers, one of which
account was of the accused which makes it clearly evident that how the
accused and his accomplices Vivek Kumar Singh usurped crore of
money without the knowledge of other directors.
7. That in reply to the contents of paragraph nos. 11, 12 and 13 of the
Release of Account Application, first and foremost, it is submitted that
the Accused (Prashant Singh) appears to have mentioned the same
without there being any context, reference and meaning, in relation to
the same. It is submitted that the instant case pertains to cheating,
forgery, siphoning of money, criminal breach of trust, etc. committed by
the Accused. In reply, it is submitted that the charge–sheet in the said
case, was filed after a detailed investigation was conducted and a Case
Diary consisting of 45 parchas was prepared by the Police. Furthermore,
the Accused has annexed some documents (which were allegedly not
filed by the Investigating Officer) in the paragraph under reply, without
even mentioning as to how the same are relevant in the case at hand. The
IO has noted that due procedure was not followed in the share transfer of
JBTCPL and after perusal of documents / bank statements of company
accounts, reached the conclusion that time and again unauthorized
amount of funds were transferred from the account of JBTCPL by the
Accused as also mentioned in the Case Diary no. 5, 8, 9, 10.

8. That the contents of paragraph no. 14 of the Release of Account

Application, are denied, being false, baseless and misconceived.

9. That the contents of paragraph no. 15 of the Release of Account

Application, being matters of record, need no reply from the
Respondent.

10. That the contents of paragraph no. 16 of the Release of Account

Application, Case Diary no. 12 clearly states the statement given by the
Chartered Accountant Tushar Nagar who was a tax auditor in JBTCPL in
the year 2019-2020 informed how the accused maintained and used dual
book of accounts in his name. Further, it states how both book of
accounts contained profit of 7 crore 53 lakhs and 81 Lakh respectively.
He also further stated that most of the meetings were solely done by the
Accused only and later the documents were send to him just for the
signatures. When interrogated further about the knowledge of 7000
shares in the account of Vandana Yadav, he denied any such transaction
as the share transfer deed after made needs to be signed by the Chartered
Accountant
 which was not done by him or under his knowledge no such deed was
sent to him. The records of the concerned ROC show the Accused and
his accomplices to be current directors of the company JBTCPL, but it
does not have any detail / documents (such as Board Approval / Share
Transfer Deed, etc.) relating to the transfer of ownership JBTCPL (98%
shareholdings) from PPTPL (the parent company of JBTCPL) to the
Accused. The Accused is attempting to mislead this Hon’ble Court into
believing that the allegations only relate to what is reflected in the
records of MCA and ROC, whereas, in the instant case, more important
fact of the matter is the manner in which those records were created,
using forged / false documents, by the Accused.

11. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no. 17 of the Transfer

Application, it is submitted that it is evident from the fact that the
Accused is trying to escape from the misappropriation done by him. As
to be further mentioned, Case Diary no. 16 states about the funds being
in the personal bank account of the accused Prashant Singh. The
respondent Vandana Yadav who resigned from the Director Position in
2018 kept her part of 7000 shares in the company account where the
accused by creating fraudulent documents and share deed about
transferring those shares to Vandana Yadav took into his account. When
later enquired upon presenting the documents showing the Transfer into
respondent’s account, the accused failed to present any Share Deed or
documents of such where he also had falsely Accused Vivek Shankar
Singh, another director about transferring the shares through him to
Vandana Yadav. Vivek Shankar Singh recorded his statement evidently
stating that such transfer never took place and later which was found
about how the accused and his accomplices fraudulently made false
documents and share deeds through the accused Prashant Singh’s bank
account. It was necessary to freeze the account of the accused to avoid
further loss and misappropriation of shares and money.

12. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no. 18 of the Release of

Account Application, it is once again submitted that the Accused appears
to have yet again miserably failed in expressing whatever it is that he
wished to state in the paragraph and short note under reply, and the
Respondent
 reserves her right to submit / furnish his reply on the said point (if need
be). The note sheet attached by the Accused with the Release of Account
Application has very casually mentioned that “for filing a complaint
there must be board resolution of the company concern (PPTPL)”,
however, on the other hand, he has failed to even specify the provision(s)
of law (if any), under which the aforesaid requirement has been
stipulated.

13. That in reply the Release of Account Application, it is submitted that the
case at hand, deals with very serious economical crimes, which have
been committed by the Accused. These crimes inter–alia include
cheating / fraud / forgery / theft of shares, etc., illegal share transfer of
JBTCPL, illegally creating and using forged / false documents. The seize
of Account of the accused was necessary to avoid any other irregularity
after the frauds done by him where releasing of the account could further
cause loss and frauds on behalf on the accused and his accomplices.

14. That at this juncture, it would be pertinent to mention here that the
Accused’s Petition U/s 482 CrPC, bearing no. 10730 of 2023, filed
before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, sitting at
Lucknow, was found lacking merits and was accordingly dismissed by
the Hon’ble High Court, by means of an order dated 16.01.2024.
Additionally, while dismissing the application, the Hon’ble High Court
at different junctures in its dismissal order has observed that:

“ 33. In the present case, the applicant could not produce any
document which may establish his defence beyond suspicion or
doubt and, therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed in the
present case.………

……38. As besides the civil dispute between the parties, the

allegations in the FIR make out commission of cognizable
offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating by the
applicant, which allegations have been established by the
material collected during investigation and, accordingly, a
charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, I am of the
considered view that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Pratibha, Mahesh Chaudhary and Priti Saraf
(Supra), the charge-sheet and the criminal proceedings against
the applicant cannot be quashed merely because the allegations
may also disclose a civil dispute between the parties.…….

….40. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the

considered view that the allegations make out a prima facie
case for trial of
 the applicant for commission of the offences of cheating and
criminal breach of trust while acting as an agent of the
company. The allegations have been found to have been
established by the material collected during investigation and
thereafter a charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant
and the trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence. There
appears to be no illegality in the charge-sheet or in the
impugned order dated 13.02.2023 passed by the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow in Criminal Case
No.18415 of 2023, whereby the trial Court has taken
cognizance of the offences and summoned the applicant to face
the trial.……”

True copy of the aforesaid order dated 16.01.2024, passed by the

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, sitting at Lucknow, in
A–482 No. 10730 / 2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1.

15. That the aforesaid set of events / submissions advanced on behalf of the
Respondent, clearly establish that the Accused, namely Prashant Singh,
is not a bonafide litigant, and he has initiated several litigations just for
the purpose of harassing the Respondent and her associates. It is highly
likely that the Accused has filed the captioned Release of Account
Application to cause further loss and misappropriation and escape the
consequences. The said case is fixed for arguments on the application for
releqse of account which has been filed on behalf by the Accused. As a
matter of fact, the Respondent has filed her objections and reply against
the said Release of Account application.

16. That for the facts, reasons and circumstances mentioned hereinabove,
and in the interest of justice, the captioned Release of Account
Application is liable to be dismissed, with costs.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most humbly prayed that in light of the facts,

reasons and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, and in the
interest of justice, the captioned Release of Account Application,
viz., Criminal Misc. Case No. 266 / 2024, is liable to be denied and
dismissed, with costs.
 Advocate
Lucknow En. No.(s):
April , 2024 (Counsel for the Respondent No. 2)
Mobile No. +91–………………..
 IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, LUCKNOW
IN RE:
Criminal Misc. Case No. 266 / 2024

VIVEK YADAV......................................................... RESPONDENT NO. 2

IN RE:

PRASHANT SINGH................................................................APPLICANT
versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER............RESPONDENTS

Case No.–18415 / 2023

Crime No.–572 / 2021
U/s–409 / 420 IPC
PS–Vibhuti Khand
District–Lucknow
Pending in the Court of the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate–II, Lucknow

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTIONS ON BEHALF OF

THE RESPONDENT

I, Vivek Yadav, aged about 45 years, S/o Mr. Siyaram Yadav, R/o B/503,

Shalimar Emerald, Jopling Road, PS–Hazratganj, District–Lucknow, the

Deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:

1. That the deponent is the Respondent in the captioned Release of Account
Application and being well acquainted with the facts and circumstances
surrounding the instant case and stated in the accompanying Objections,
is competent to depose to the same in the instant affidavit.

2. That the contents of paragraph nos. 1 to 16 of the accompanying

objections over releasing of account are either true to her personal
knowledge or believed by her to be true on the basis of available records
/ or legal advice.

3. That the annexures filed along with the accompanying Objections are the
true / true-typed / certified copies of their respective originals, as the case
may be.

Lucknow
April , 2024 DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

I, the above–named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of Paras 1 to 3

of this Affidavit are true to my personal knowledge and belief. No part of it is
false and nothing material has been concealed.

Lucknow
April , 2024 DEPONENT

I identify the deponent, on the basis of

records, who has signed / put T.I.
before me.

(Advocate)