06 January,2026 12:22 PM IST | Mumbai | mid-day online correspondent
Vikram Bhatt
Bollywood filmmaker Vikram Bhatt, who is currently facing legal trouble and is in prison with his wife. The two have been accused of cheating. On Monday, the Rajasthan High Court, rejected their petition seeking quashing of the FIR registered against him and his associates in Udaipur. The court also refused their bail plea.
Ajay Murdia, a resident of Udaipur, had filed a complaint of cheating and criminal breach of trust against Vikram Bhatt, Shwetambari Bhatt and others, alleging that funds taken in the name of a film project were misappropriated.
Bhatt had moved the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, contending that the matter was of a civil nature, not criminal.
The counsel for the petitioner argued in the court that the dispute is essentially one of breach of contract between two parties, which is civil in nature, and that under their agreement, the jurisdiction for resolving disputes should have been Mumbai and not Udaipur.
Describing Bhatt as a reputed filmmaker, the counsel also submitted in the court that an agreement was entered into with the complainant for making four films with an investment of Rs. 40 crore, followed later by an additional Rs. 7 crore. The counsel submitted that out of four films, one has been completed, but the complainant stopped further financing.
The counsel for the respondent informed the court that the police had conducted a preliminary inquiry before registering the FIR, during which the allegation of misappropriation of funds "was found to be substantiated".
They also brought to the court's notice that the money given for film production was transferred to vendors and individuals who had no connection with the film.
Justice Sameer Jain of Rajastha High Court refused to interfere and observed that the matter does not appear to be merely a breach of contract, but prima facie involves deliberate diversion and misappropriation of funds. As a result, the police investigation will continue.
The High Court, in its order, refused to provide any relief to Bhatt and others, stating, "The allegations are not confined merely to non-performance of a contract; they involve deliberate diversion of funds, lack of transparency, and elements of dishonesty. The preliminary inquiry has revealed evidence of fake invoices and the circulation of funds."
The court also noted that the Bombay High Court had previously rejected the anticipatory bail plea and stated that when a cognisable offence is made out prima facie in a case, the high court should not interfere with the investigation.
(With inputs from PTI)
