Are you from India? 🇮🇳
👉 Check Today's Deals on Amazon IndiaVikram Bhatt Faces Legal Challenges
In a significant setback for Bollywood filmmaker Vikram Bhatt, who is currently incarcerated along with his wife in a cheating case, the Rajasthan High Court has dismissed his petition to quash the FIR filed against him in Udaipur.
Judge’s Observations on the Case
According to reports from PTI, Justice Sameer Jain indicated that the allegations suggest a deliberate diversion and misappropriation of funds, rather than merely a contractual dispute.
‘Not Merely a Breach of Contract’
The High Court emphasized that the case prima facie reveals criminal intent, asserting that the allegations go beyond non-performance of a contract. They involve significant issues such as lack of transparency and elements of dishonesty.
Details of the Misappropriation Complaint
The FIR was filed by Ajay Murdia from Udaipur, accusing Vikram Bhatt, Shwetambari Bhatt, and others of cheating and criminal breach of trust. It is alleged that funds raised for a film project were misappropriated.
Arguments from Bhatt’s Counsel
Vikram Bhatt’s legal team contended that the disagreement was purely civil, relating to a breach of contract, and did not necessitate criminal proceedings. They argued that the jurisdiction for any disputes resided in Mumbai, not Udaipur.
Claims of Completed Projects and Funding Issues
Bhatt’s counsel pointed out that an agreement had been made for producing four films with a total investment of ₹47 crore. They claimed one film had been completed, but further funding was allegedly halted by the complainant, leading to the conflict.
Police Inquiry Findings
Refuting Bhatt’s plea, the respondent’s legal counsel noted that a preliminary police inquiry had substantiated the allegations of fund misappropriation.
Evidence of Fraudulent Practices
The High Court noted that the inquiry revealed serious financial irregularities, including fake invoices and improper fund circulation. It was stressed that prior to this, the Bombay High Court had rejected Bhatt’s plea for anticipatory bail.
Conclusion: Ongoing Investigations
The High Court reiterated its stance that interference in an ongoing investigation is unwarranted when a cognizable offense is evident. As the case progresses, the legal implications for Bhatt and his associates continue to unfold.
Source link
