Bollywood Veteran Dharmendra Summoned in Fraud Allegations Related to ‘Garam Dharam Dhaba’ Franchise
Bollywood legend Dharmendra, alongside two associates, has been summoned by the Patiala House Court in Delhi in connection with allegations of fraud related to the ‘Garam Dharam Dhaba’ restaurant franchise. The summons, issued by Judicial Magistrate Yashdeep Chahal, stems from a complaint filed by Delhi businessman Sushil Kumar, who claims he was misled into investing in the franchise under false pretenses.
In a ruling dated December 5, the court observed that “the evidence on record prima facie indicates that the accused persons induced the complainant in furtherance of their common intent, and the ingredients of the offence of cheating are duly disclosed.” As a result, Dharmendra and his co-accused face charges under Sections 420 (cheating), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and 34 (common intent) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Additionally, the co-accused face charges of criminal intimidation under Section 506.
Fraudulent Claims and Misrepresentation
The allegations against Dharmendra and his associates date back to April 2018, when Kumar was reportedly approached by the co-accused, allegedly representing Dharmendra, with an offer to open a franchise of the ‘Garam Dharam Dhaba’ restaurant along NH-24/NH-9 in Uttar Pradesh. Kumar claims he was enticed by claims that the brand’s outlets in Delhi’s Connaught Place and Haryana’s Murthal were highly profitable, generating monthly revenues of ₹70–80 lakh.
Kumar was allegedly promised a seven percent guaranteed return on his initial investment of ₹41 lakh, along with full support to establish and operate the franchise. However, after several discussions and email exchanges, he was told to increase his investment to ₹63 lakh, excluding taxes, and secure land for the restaurant.
On September 22, 2018, a letter of intent was signed outlining the business terms, and Kumar transferred ₹17.70 lakh via cheque, which was promptly cashed. He also acquired land for the project in November 2018. Despite these efforts, Kumar claims the accused failed to inspect the site or fulfill their promises, leaving him in a financially precarious situation and feeling defrauded.
Court’s Observations and Upcoming Legal Proceedings
The court, after reviewing the documents submitted by Kumar, including the letter of intent bearing the ‘Garam Dharam Dhaba’ logo, concluded that there was enough evidence to suggest Dharmendra’s involvement in the alleged fraud. However, the court emphasized that a thorough examination of all evidence would occur during the trial phase.
The next hearing is scheduled for February 20, 2025. Advocate D.D. Pandey, representing Kumar, has asserted that the presented evidence justifies legal action against the accused.
This case dates back to 2020 when the court initially dismissed an application for registering an FIR but permitted Kumar to proceed by presenting evidence directly.
Wider Concerns and Industry Implications
This case has raised alarms about transparency in franchise agreements, particularly those involving celebrity endorsements. Kumar claims that he was misled by inflated revenue figures and exaggerated promises of guaranteed profits, leading to significant financial losses.
The allegations have sparked a broader debate about the ethical responsibilities of celebrities who endorse business ventures. While celebrity endorsements often lend credibility to businesses, cases like this highlight the potential for exploitation, where celebrity influence may be used to deceive unsuspecting investors.
As the trial progresses, it is expected to bring attention to the role of celebrity-backed franchises and the need for stricter regulatory oversight. The outcome of the case could set an important precedent, promoting greater accountability for high-profile figures involved in business ventures and protecting investors from fraudulent practices.
The involvement of a celebrated actor like Dharmendra in this case adds a layer of public interest, underscoring the risks tied to business investments that carry celebrity endorsements. The case not only impacts the parties involved but also raises questions about the broader framework of accountability in celebrity-endorsed businesses.
