Garam Dharam Dhaba cheating case: A Delhi court has summoned veteran actor Dharmendra and two others in connection with a cheating case related to the Garam Dharam Dhaba franchise, as per the complainant’s lawyer.
The order, passed by Judicial Magistrate Yashdeep Chahal, stems from a complaint filed by Delhi-based businessman Sushil Kumar, according to PTI.
Allegations of Fraud
In the Garam Dharam Dhaba cheating case, The complainant alleged that he was lured into investing in the franchise. His lawyer, D.D. Pandey stated that Sushil Kumar was misled by the accused, leading him to invest Rs 17.70 lakh in 2018. Kumar claimed the accused later stopped responding to his calls.
Court Observations
In its December 5 order, the court noted that the evidence prima facie pointed to a case of cheating and criminal conspiracy. “The accused persons induced Sushil Kumar in furtherance of their common intent, fulfilling the ingredients of the offence of cheating,” the court said.
The Judicial Magistrate directed the accused, including Dharmendra (Dharam Singh Deol), to appear before the court on February 20, 2025. The summons include charges under Sections 420 (cheating), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Additionally, two of the accused face charges of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.
Case Background
The dispute revolves around the Garam Dharam Dhaba franchise. Documents submitted in court include a letter of intent with the restaurant’s logo, suggesting the transaction pertained to the franchise. Sushil Kumar alleged that in April 2018, the co-accused approached him on behalf of Dharmendra to set up a franchise along NH-24/NH-9 in Uttar Pradesh.
False Promises and Misrepresentation
According to ANI, Kumar was allegedly assured the restaurant would generate ₹70-80 lakh in monthly turnover, similar to its outlets in Connaught Place and Murthal. He was promised a 7% return on his Rs 41 lakh investment.
However, after receiving Rs 17.70 lakh from Kumar in September 2018, the accused allegedly ceased communication.
In October 2020, an earlier application seeking FIR registration was dismissed. The court, however, directed the complainant to present evidence, which has now led to the issuance of a summons to the accused.
