GROUNDS Forgery and fraud is done in secrecy and concealment. All actions taken by our clients including the preliminary Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated December 29, 2020, the Addendum dated April 9, 2021, the Handing Over and Taking Over Report, and the General Power of Attorney (GPA) executed on April 9, 2021 were executed transparently. These documents bear the actual signatures and physical presence of the original founding trustees and principal management (M. Lokesh Reddy and Savitha Lokesh Reddy). Openly executing registered and notarized legal instruments with witnesses completely negates any theory of forgery or hidden fraud. The complainant is trying to misuse criminal and anti-corruption machinery by slapping heavy criminal tags (forgery, cheating, conspiracy) onto what is essentially an internal trust governance or management transition dispute. As established by the Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 ( para 13 SCC Online ), courts have heavily deprecated the growing tendency in business and management circles to convert civil/corporate disputes into criminal prosecutions just to put pressure on parties. If subsequent trustees (like Parikshit L. Reddy, who came into control years later in late 2023 and 2026) have a disagreement over historical corporate arrangements voluntarily entered into by the original founders in 2021, their remedy lies strictly in a civil forum not by dressing up internal trust disputes as criminal forgery. The complainant (Parikshit L. Reddy) entered the Trust governance structure much later (via deeds in September 2023 and June 2026). He cannot selectively disown, rewrite, or falsely label historical corporate actions and valid legal instruments that were voluntarily initiated and executed by the founding trustees themselves back in 2021. The Managing Trustee M. Lokesh Reddy voluntarily signed and executed the GPA on 9th April, 2021and participated in signing the addendum to MoU and Hand over report. In K.R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala, (2005) 12 SCC 631, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even knowledge or suspicion of another person's unlawful conduct, without positive evidence indicating an agreement, is insufficient to infer criminal conspiracy.Accordingly, unless the complaint is supported by reliable material showing a meeting of minds and a common unlawful object attributable to the persons concerned, the essential ingredients of Section 61 BNS remain unestablished. The allegation of conspiracy cannot be sustained merely on the basis of business association, subsequent transactions, suspicion or collective attribution of responsibility .
GROUNDS
Forgery and fraud is done in secrecy and concealment. All actions taken by our clients including the preliminary Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated December 29, 2020, the Addendum dated April 9, 2021, the Handing Over and Taking Over Report, and the General Power of Attorney (GPA) executed on April 9, 2021 were executed transparently. These documents bear the actual signatures and physical presence of the original founding trustees and principal management (M. Lokesh Reddy and Savitha Lokesh Reddy). Openly executing registered and notarized legal instruments with witnesses completely negates any theory of forgery or hidden fraud.
The complainant is trying to misuse criminal and anti-corruption machinery by slapping heavy criminal tags (forgery, cheating, conspiracy) onto what is essentially an internal trust governance or management transition dispute. As established by the Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 ( para 13 SCC Online ), courts have heavily deprecated the growing tendency in business and management circles to convert civil/corporate disputes into criminal prosecutions just to put pressure on parties. If subsequent trustees (like Parikshit L. Reddy, who came into control years later in late 2023 and 2026) have a disagreement over historical corporate arrangements voluntarily entered into by the original founders in 2021, their remedy lies strictly in a civil forum not by dressing up internal trust disputes as criminal forgery.
The complainant (Parikshit L. Reddy) entered the Trust governance structure much later (via deeds in September 2023 and June 2026). He cannot selectively disown, rewrite, or falsely label historical corporate actions and valid legal instruments that were voluntarily initiated and executed by the founding trustees themselves back in 2021. The Managing Trustee M. Lokesh Reddy voluntarily signed and executed the GPA on 9th April, 2021and participated in signing the addendum to MoU and Hand over report.
In K.R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala, (2005) 12 SCC 631, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even knowledge or suspicion of another person's unlawful conduct, without positive evidence indicating an agreement, is insufficient to infer criminal conspiracy.Accordingly, unless the complaint is supported by reliable material showing a meeting of minds and a common unlawful object attributable to the persons concerned, the essential ingredients of Section 61 BNS remain unestablished. The allegation of conspiracy cannot be sustained merely on the basis of business association, subsequent transactions, suspicion or collective attribution of responsibility
.
Created using ChatSlide
This document outlines a comprehensive approach to a legal dispute involving multiple parties and institutions. It begins by detailing the context and timeline of the dispute, including trust deeds and allegations. It then addresses grounds against forgery and conspiracy, emphasizing the legitimacy of legal instruments and distinguishing governance issues from criminal matters. Finally, it assesses complaints, scrutinizes evidence, and advocates for civil remedies while opposing unfounded...