The Bombay High Court recently intervened in a cheating case registered against Kannada actor Dhruva Sarja, preventing the Mumbai Police from filing a chargesheet without explicit court approval. The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Mumbai-based producer-director Raghvendra Hegde, who alleged that Sarja received ₹3 crore for a film project titled The Soldier, but failed either to complete the film or refund the money.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad issued the restraint, making clear that no chargesheet could be submitted in the ongoing investigation unless the court provided permission. This development came shortly after an earlier directive by a different bench of the Bombay High Court, which had instructed Sarja to deposit ₹3.10 crore with the court registry as a show of good faith before pursuing his plea.
The complaint by Hegde centers on funds advanced to facilitate the commencement of the film, which allegedly never progressed. Despite the financial transaction and failure to deliver the film as promised, details such as lack of communication and absence of a workable script have become focal points during legal proceedings. Sarja’s legal team admitted to receiving the sum but contended that a valid script was only presented in December 2023, and that project delays were not intentional or malicious.
By halting the chargesheet submission, the High Court has created a controlled pace for the legal process, subjecting the investigation to judicial oversight. It underscores the court's position that substantive legal developments—especially chargesheets in criminal proceedings—should not proceed absent judicial scrutiny when there are ongoing legal challenges.
This order is part of a broader judicial narrative where courts demand demonstration of sincerity before allowing the wielding of coercive power through criminal process. Through its directive, the High Court balanced procedural prudence with the rights of the complainant, ensuring that the accusation proceeds meaningfully while preserving the accused’s opportunity to present his position with partial restoration of agency.
At the same time, it reinforces the court’s reliance on good-faith gestures—such as depositing funds—to indicate a commitment to resolving disputes. This approach may shape how similar cases involving financial disputes transform into criminal litigation, and how courts calibrate the entry of police investigation proceedings into what are effectively commercial disputes.
With the restriction in place, the trial court and police both await further directions from the High Court on how to move forward. The actor’s compliance with prior orders and the progress of investigation will now be assessed under enhanced judicial supervision.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.