Actor Ameesha Patel charged with cheating, criminal breach of trust, SC stays proceedings

In connection with summonses issued by a trial court in Jharkhand, the Supreme Court has delayed criminal proceedings for the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust against Bollywood actor Ameesha Patel. In response to the actor’s appeal, a panel of Justices B R Gavai and P S Narasimha sent the Jharkhand government a […]

Ameesha Patel
by Simran Singh - August 30, 2022, 4:39 pm

In connection with summonses issued by a trial court in Jharkhand, the Supreme Court has delayed criminal proceedings for the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust against Bollywood actor Ameesha Patel. In response to the actor’s appeal, a panel of Justices B R Gavai and P S Narasimha sent the Jharkhand government a notice.

The top court did order that cases involving violations of Section 138 (cheque bounce) of the Negotiable Instruments Act be handled legally. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 states, “Issue notice only with regard to offences punishable under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating). The proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code shall be suspended pending further orders.

“We, however, clarify that the proceedings, insofar as offences punishable under Section 138 (cheque bounce) of the Negotiable Instruments Act are concerned, shall be proceeded in accordance with the law,” the bench said.

The top court’s decision was reached after Ameesha appealed the Jharkhand High Court’s dismissal of her request for the quashing and setting aside of an order made by a trial court in Ranchi in connection with a complaint against her on May 5, 2022.

Ajay Kumar Singh, a producer, had filed a complaint, and the court had taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 406, 420, 34, and 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to produce the film Desi Magic, Ajay allegedly transferred Rs. 2.5 crore to the actor’s bank account. However, Ameesha didn’t finish the movie as promised and didn’t give the money back either. According to the high court, it appears at first glance that each of the accused parties is responsible for paying back the amount in question.