.png){kind=small}
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
1 hour ago
3
ARTICLE AD BOX
The FIR at Bharatpur’s Mathura Gate police station was lodged under sections for cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal conspiracy against Khan and Padukone, too, as they were “brand ambassadors". (Express File Photo)
The Rajasthan High Court has stayed proceedings under an FIR filed against film stars Shah Rukh Khan and Deepika Padukone, who were accused of allegedly promoting and marketing defective vehicles.
The FIR, registered against them in Bharatpur, had also named Hyundai Motor India’s managing director Anso Kim, whole-time director and COO Tarun Garg, and several showroom owners.
The matter was heard in the Jaipur Bench of the High Court on a petition filed by Shah Rukh Khan, Deepika Padukone, Anso Kim, and another person. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Khan through video conferencing, while Senior Advocate Madhav Mitra represented Padukone, and Senior Advocate Vivek Raj Bajwa represented Anso Kim.
In their petitions, the accused argued that no specific allegations had been made against them.
The FIR had been lodged by advocate Kirti Singh, 50, who said that he purchased Hyundai’s 2022 model Alcazar for Rs 23,97,353 from a dealership in Sonipat, Haryana, but that he has been facing issues ever since.
The FIR at Bharatpur’s Mathura Gate police station was lodged under sections for cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal conspiracy against Khan and Padukone, too, as they were “brand ambassadors,” Singh said.
The lawyers of the actors and Hyundai officials told the court that the complainant had used a car for nearly three years, driving it for over 67,000 kilometres. If there had been any grievance, the proper course of action would have been to approach the consumer court, not to file a police complaint, they argued.
Story continues below this ad
Padukone’s lawyer submitted that the complainant had purchased the vehicle three years ago and that Padukone had only begun endorsing the company after that. Hence, she could not be held responsible for the vehicle’s condition, her lawyer argued.
English (US) ·