Delhi Court summons Dharmendra in Garam Dharam Dhaba cheating case
What's the story
The Patiala House Court in Delhi has summoned veteran Bollywood actor Dharmendra (89) and two others in a cheating case related to the Garam Dharam Dhaba franchise, reported ANI. The summons were issued after Delhi businessman Sushil Kumar complained that he was duped into investing in the franchise. Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Yashdeep Chahal said the evidence "prima facie indicates that the accused persons induced the complainant."
Legal proceedings
Court's observations and next hearing date
The court noted that the documents, including a letter of intent with the Garam Dharam Dhaba logo, show that the transaction involved the restaurant and was being pursued by the co-accused on behalf of accused Dharam Singh Deol. The matter will be heard further on February 20, 2025. The court also clarified that currently, only a prima facie case is to be considered without delving into its merits.
Complaint details
Details of the alleged cheating case
Kumar alleges that in April 2018, the co-accused approached him on behalf of Dharmendra with an offer to open a Garam Dharam Dhaba franchise on NH-24/NH-9, Uttar Pradesh. He claims that he was lured into investing in the franchise on the pretext that existing branches were yielding a monthly turnover of approximately ₹70L to ₹80L. Kumar was promised an investment sum of ₹41L with a 7% profit assurance.
Investment hike
Increased investment and unfulfilled promises
Kumar alleges that after several meetings and emails about the franchise, he was asked to invest an additional ₹63L plus tax and provide land for the business. A letter of intent detailing payment and business terms was signed on September 22, 2018. Kumar paid ₹17.70L via cheque which was encashed, and bought land in November 2018. However, despite his efforts, the respondents never inspected the land or met him leading to financial loss.
Threats and inquiry
The complainant threatened and police inquiry results
Further, Kumar alleges he was threatened with extreme consequences if he tried contacting the accused again. A police inquiry confirmed the execution of the letter of intent but said the case was a civil dispute related to a breach of contract. The police noted Kumar no longer wanted the franchise and instead sought a refund of his investment. As no cognizable offense was found, they concluded no action was required.