File photo of Bollywood actor Shilpa Shetty and husband Raj Kundra. File
| Photo Credit: PTI
Actor Shilpa Shetty Kundra and her husband, businessman Raj Kundra, on Monday (November 10, 2025), approached the Bombay High Court seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against them in connection with an alleged ₹60 crore cheating case.
The FIR was filed in September this year at the Juhu Police Station by businessman Deepak R. Kothari, who claimed he was defrauded of ₹60 crore through investments made in two companies — Gold Gate Trading Private Limited, and Best Deal TV Private Limited.
At the centre of the dispute are Best Deal TV, a home shopping television channel co-founded by the couple in 2015, and Gold Gate Trading, another of their business ventures. Between 2015 and 2023, the couple induced him to invest ₹60 crore in Best Deal TV, but the funds were diverted for their personal benefit, Mr. Kothari has alleged.
The FIR invokes Sections 403 (dishonest misappropriation of property), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In their respective petitions, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Kundras have argued that the FIR is a gross misuse of criminal law to settle what is essentially a civil and contractual dispute arising from a failed business venture.
Apart from seeking to quash the FIR, the couple has also urged the court to direct the police not to file a chargesheet in the case, and to refrain from taking any coercive action against them until their pleas are heard. The petitions came up for hearing on Monday (November 10)before a Bench of the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, Shree Chandrashekar and Justice Gautam Ankhad. The court directed the petitioners to serve a copy of their pleas to the complainant, and posted the matter for further hearing on November 20.
Mr. Kundra, in his plea, described the FIR as a pressure tactic aimed at coercing him into meeting the complainant’s “illegal demands”. He maintained that he had always been a law-abiding citizen, and that the FIR was part of a pattern of criminal proceedings being initiated against him “one after another”, which he believed amounts to harassment.
Ms. Kundra, in her petition, stated that she was not involved in the day-to-day operations of the company and had been associated with it only for a limited period. She contended that her name had been dragged into the matter solely to malign her reputation and cause undue harassment.
The couple has claimed that the FIR was based on a “false and distorted set of facts” and had been “maliciously filed with an ulterior and malafide motive to extort money”. They submitted a Share Subscription Agreement and a Supplementary Agreement dated September 14, 2025 as part of their evidence, along with an order from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai, where the matter is already under adjudication. They argued that the complainant was attempting to give a civil dispute a criminal colour, and that the ongoing proceedings before the NCLT should take precedence.
The couple also submitted photographs showing Mr. Kothari’s son attending events hosted by them, suggesting that the relationship between the parties remained cordial even after the alleged fraud. The couple attributed the collapse of the business to unforeseen economic circumstances, particularly the demonetisation exercise in November 2016, which they said severely impacted cash-based businesses like theirs. The losses suffered, they argued, were purely commercial in nature and not the result of any fraudulent design or criminal conspiracy.
The court will take up the matter again on November 20.
Published – November 11, 2025 02:21 am IST
