In a setback to Bollywood filmmaker Vikram Bhatt, who’s at the moment lodged in jail alongside together with his spouse in a dishonest case, the Rajasthan Excessive Court docket on Monday dismissed his petition looking for quashing of the FIR registered towards him and his associates in Udaipur.In response to PTI, Justice Sameer Jain refused to intervene within the matter, observing that the allegations appeared to contain deliberate diversion and misappropriation of funds reasonably than a mere contractual dispute.
‘Not merely a breach of contract’
Whereas rejecting the plea, the Excessive Court docket made it clear that the case prima facie discloses legal intent. In its order, the court docket said, “The allegations are usually not confined merely to non-performance of a contract; they contain deliberate diversion of funds, lack of transparency, and parts of dishonesty.”The court docket additional famous that the police investigation should proceed, because the matter concerned severe monetary irregularities.
Grievance alleges misappropriation of movie funds
The FIR was lodged by Ajay Murdia, a resident of Udaipur, who accused Vikram Bhatt, Shwetambari Bhatt, and others of dishonest and legal breach of belief. In response to the criticism, funds collected within the identify of a movie challenge have been allegedly misappropriated.Bhatt subsequently approached the Excessive Court docket looking for quashing of the FIR, arguing that the dispute was civil in nature.
‘Dispute is contractual, not legal’: Bhatt’s argument
Showing for the petitioner, Bhatt’s counsel submitted that the dispute stemmed from a breach of contract between two events and didn’t warrant legal proceedings. It was argued that beneath the settlement, Mumbai — not Udaipur — had jurisdiction over any disputes.Describing Bhatt as a reputed filmmaker, the counsel knowledgeable the court docket that an settlement had been signed to supply 4 movies with an funding of Rs 40 crore, adopted by a further Rs 7 crore later.The counsel claimed that one movie had already been accomplished, however the complainant allegedly stopped additional funding, resulting in the dispute.
Police inquiry discovered allegations ‘substantiated’
Opposing the plea, the counsel for the respondent advised the court docket that the police had performed a preliminary inquiry earlier than registering the FIR. Throughout this inquiry, the allegation of misappropriation of funds “was discovered to be substantiated”.It was additionally dropped at the court docket’s consideration that the cash supplied for movie manufacturing had been transferred to distributors and people who had no reference to the movie challenge.
‘Proof of faux invoices and fund circulation’
Refusing to grant any reduction, the Excessive Court docket noticed that the preliminary investigation had revealed severe irregularities. In its order, the court docket said, “The preliminary inquiry has revealed proof of faux invoices and the circulation of funds.”The court docket additionally took notice of the truth that the Bombay Excessive Court docket had earlier rejected Bhatt’s anticipatory bail plea. It reiterated that when a cognisable offence is prima facie made out, the Excessive Court docket mustn’t intervene with an ongoing investigation.