The Patiala House Court in Delhi has recently issued summons against veteran Bollywood actor Dharmendra and two others in a cheating case related to the ‘Garam Dharam Dhaba’ franchise. The summons, issued by Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Yashdeep Chahal, followed a complaint filed by Delhi businessman Sushil Kumar, who alleged he was enticed into investing in the franchise.
Delhi Court issued summons to Bollywood actor Dharmendra and two others in a cheating case related to Garam Dharam Dhaba.
Summon is issued on a complaint filed by a Delhi businessman who alleged cheating by luring him to invest in the franchise of Garam Dharam Dhaba.---Advertisement---— ANI (@ANI) December 10, 2024
Allegations And Legal Proceedings
The complainant, Sushil Kumar, claimed that he was induced by the accused to invest in the ‘Garam Dharam Dhaba’ franchise with promises of high returns. The court noted that evidence indicated a prima facie case of cheating. Dharmendra (real name Dharam Singh Deol) and two co-accused were summoned under sections 420, 120B, and 34 IPC, with additional charges of criminal intimidation against two of them under section 506 IPC.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on February 20, 2025. The court emphasized that at this stage, a meticulous examination of the case’s merits was not required; only a prima facie case needed to be established.
Details Of The Complaint
Sushil Kumar’s complaint detailed how he was approached by the co-accused on behalf of Dharam Singh Deol in April 2018 with an offer to open a ‘Garam Dharam Dhaba’ franchise on NH-24/NH-9, Uttar Pradesh. The franchise, he was promised, would generate a monthly turnover of Rs 70 to 80 lakhs from existing locations in Delhi and Haryana.
Also Read: Influencer Sunny Chopra Gets Married, Meet The Stunning Bride Who Stole The Spotlight!
Kumar invested Rs 41 lakh with an assurance of a 7% profit. Meetings and communications occurred, including a meeting at Connaught Place’s ‘Garam Dharam Dhaba’ branch. Despite these interactions, the respondents failed to deliver on their promises. A letter of intent was executed, but the respondents never inspected the land purchased for the business, nor did they make any further commitments. Kumar alleged that they avoided him and eventually threatened him when he sought a refund.
Earlier, an FIR was dismissed, and the police concluded that the matter was civil in nature, relating to a breach of contract, and did not require criminal investigation.
Next Steps
The case hinges on the financial investment and promises made by the accused in establishing the franchise. The complainant now seeks a refund of his investment and alleges that he and his business associates were defrauded. The court has directed that the case proceed with further hearings, focusing on the allegations of cheating and intimidation against the accused.
