Complainant settles matter with actor Dharmendra in cheating case

Delhi's Patiala House Court had issued summons to bollywood actor Dharmendra and two others in a cheating case related to Garam Dharam Dhaba on December 5, 2024.

One of the accused who were summoned had challenged the Summoning before a session court. Additional Sessions Judge Dheeraj Mor issued notice to the complainant, Sushil Kumar, on December 20, 2024.

During a hearing on February 6, 2025, the sessions court was informed that the matter had been amicably settled, and the respondent has agreed to withdraw his complaint case before the Trial Court.

It was further submitted that in that regard an application has already been moved by the respondent before the Ld. Trial Court which is listed for February 10, 2025. He requested that this matter be put up after the said complaint is withdrawn on the said date.

Thereafter, the matter was settled, and the same fact was informed by the Magistrate court.

During a subsequent hearing on February 18, before the session court it was submitted that matter has been settled and case was compounded. Therefore they wanted to withdraw the revision petition. On February 20, the revision petition was scheduled to be withdrawn.

Summons were issued on a Complaint filed by a Delhi businessman who alleged cheating by luring him to invest in franchise of Garam Dharam Dhaba.

Judicial Magistrate First Class Yashdeep Chahal had issued summons to Dharam Singh Deol (Dharmendra) and two others as accused in a cheating case.

"The evidence on record prima facie indicates that the accused persons induced the complainant in furtherance of their common intent and the ingredients of the offence of cheating are duly disclosed," Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Yashdeep Chahal had said in the summoning order passed on December 5.

" Accordingly, let the accused persons at serial number 1 (Dharam Singh Deol ), 2 and 3 be summoned for the commission of offences under section 420, 120B read with section 34 IPC. Let the accused persons at serial no. 2 and 3 be also summoned for the offence of criminal intimidation under section 506 of IPC," the court ordered.

The Court had said that it is fairly settled that at the stage of summoning, the court is required to examine a prima facie case, and meticulous examination of the merits and demerits of the case is not warranted.

The documents on record pertains to Garam Dharam Dhaba and letter of intent also bears logo of the said restaurant, the court noted. It is fairly apparent that transaction between the parties pertains to Garam Dharam Dhaba and was being pursued by the co-accused on behalf of accused Dharam Singh Deol, the court said.

On October 9, 2020, the court dismissed an application seeking a direction for registration of FIR. However, the court had taken cognizance of the complaint and directed the complainant to produce evidence. Advocate D D Pandey appeared for the complainant, Sushil Kumar.

The case of complainant Sushil Kumar was that in the month of April 2018, co-accused had approached him on behalf of Dharam Singh Deol with an offer to open a franchise of Garam Dharma Dhaba on NH-24/NH-9, UP.

The complainant was allegedly lured to invest in the franchise on the pretext that the branches of said restaurant at Connaught Place and Murthal, Haryana were generating a monthly turnover of approximately Rs 70 to 80 Lakh. The complainant was promised that he would have to invest a sum of Rs. 41 lakh against an assurance of 7 per cent profit on his investment. The complainant was also promised that he would be getting complete assistance for setting up the franchise in Uttar Pradesh.

It was stated that various e-mails were exchanged and meetings were held between the complainant and co-accused in this regard, and a meeting was also held between the complainant and his business associates and co-accused at the branch office of "Garam Dharam Dhaba" situated at Connaught Place, New Delhi.

It was alleged that one of the co-accused asked the complainant to invest a sum of Rs 63 lacs plus tax and to arrange land for the said business, and accordingly, a letter of intent dated September 22, 2018, was executed between the complainant, his business associates, co-accused persons, as per which, the complainant and his business associates had to pay a sum of Rs 63 lacs upto January 31, 2019 for getting the business franchise.

Thereafter, a cheque for an amount of Rs 17.70 lacs dated September 22, 2018 was handed over by the complainant to the co-accused and the same was encashed in the account of the respondents.

It was further stated that in furtherance of the agreement between them, land was also purchased on November 02, 2018, by the complainant and his business associates at the Highway near Gajraula, District Amroha, UP, whereafter, they approached respondent no. 2 for starting speedy work for running the business as early as possible, but till date, neither of the respondents inspected the said purchased land nor did they meet the complainant.

It was also stated that despite repeated attempts made by the complainant to meet the respondents, he did not receive any response and as such, he and his business associates have been cheated by the respondents and have suffered a loss.

It was further alleged that the complainant was rather threatened the complainant with dire consequences if he attempted to contact them again.

Earlier, An action taken report was called from the police station Connaught Place on the complaint. As per the same, an inquiry was conducted upon the complaint and the respondent co-accused were examined, who admitted that a letter of intent dated September 22, 2018 was executed between them and the complainant and his business associates, which was valid for January 31, 2019, but they are ready to give the franchise of "Garam Dharam Dhaba" to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the said letter of intent.

The police had stated that the complainant was also contacted telephonically, but he stated that now, he did not want any franchise, but he wanted his money back from the respondents.

The police had said that as per the contents of the complaint, documents and inquiry so conducted, the matter is related to breach of contract, which is purely civil in nature. No cognizable offence is made out, therefore, no police action is required in the matter, the police had said. (ANI)