New Delhi, December 10: The Patiala House Court in Delhi has issued summons against Bollywood veteran Dharmendra and two others in a cheating case related to the “Garam Dharam Dhaba” franchise. The summons, issued by Judicial Magistrate Yashdeep Chahal, follows a complaint by Delhi businessman Sushil Kumar, who alleged he was misled into investing in the franchise.
Details of the Case
The complaint accuses the respondents of inducing Kumar to invest in the franchise under false pretenses. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting cheating and criminal intimidation, invoking sections 420 (cheating), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 34 (common intent), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.
The complainant alleges that in April 2018, representatives approached him on Dharmendra’s behalf with an offer to open a franchise on NH-24/NH-9 in Uttar Pradesh, promising high turnovers based on the success of existing branches in Connaught Place, Delhi, and Murthal, Haryana. Kumar claims he was assured profits of 7% on a Rs. 41 lakh investment, along with full assistance in setting up the franchise.
Investment and Alleged Breach
Kumar reportedly paid Rs. 17.70 lakh upfront and secured land near Gajraula, Amroha, UP, for the project. Despite repeated follow-ups, he alleges the respondents neither visited the purchased land nor initiated the business as promised. When confronted, Kumar claims he was threatened with dire consequences.
Court’s Observations
The court stated that at the stage of summoning, it only examines a prima facie case and does not delve into the merits of the allegations. It observed that the documents provided, including the letter of intent for the franchise, suggest the transaction was pursued on behalf of Dharmendra.
The matter is listed for further hearing on February 20, 2025.
Background and Police Inquiry
An earlier inquiry conducted by Connaught Place police classified the matter as a civil breach of contract, stating no cognizable offense was made out. However, the court took cognizance of the complaint, leading to the current summons.
Advocate DD Pandey, representing the complainant, argued that the franchise deal misrepresented facts, leading to financial loss for Kumar and his associates.