Actor Shilpa Shetty and her businessman husband Raj Kundra have moved the Bombay High Court, seeking to quash the ₹60-crore cheating case lodged against them. The couple also urged the court to direct the police not to file a chargesheet in the case, and not to take any coercive action against them pending the hearing of their pleas.
On Monday, their pleas came up for hearing before a bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekar and Justice Gautam Ankhad.
The court directed them to provide a copy of their petition to the complainant, who in this case is Deepak Kothari, and further posted the matter for hearing on November 20.
The case relates to a complaint lodged by a 60-year-old businessman, Deepak Kothari, alleging that from 2015 to 2023, the couple induced him to invest ₹60 crore in their company, named Best Deal TV Pvt Ltd. However, the amount was used for their personal benefits.
Couple claims FIR based on distorted facts
In their pleas, the couple claimed that the FIR filed by the police was based on false and distorted facts. They also said that it was filed "maliciously filed with an ulterior and malicious motive to extort money".
{{/usCountry}}In their pleas, the couple claimed that the FIR filed by the police was based on false and distorted facts. They also said that it was filed "maliciously filed with an ulterior and malicious motive to extort money".
{{/usCountry}}Shilpa Shetty, in her plea, clarified that she was not involved in the day-to-day activities of the company and was associated with it for a very limited time.
Calling it a dispute of a civil and contractual nature, the couple said that the dispute was due to a failed business venture and investment loss.
As per the plea, the company collapsed due to “unforeseen economic circumstances,” including the demonetisation that took place in November 2016. Further, it said that the losses were only business losses and did not have any criminal conspiracy or fraudulent design to it.
Last month, Shilpa Shetty withdrew her application seeking permission to travel abroad, informing the Bombay High Court that her plans to travel had not materialised.
She had earlier sought to visit Los Angeles, but the court questioned the necessity to travel.