NEW DELHI: A sessions court in the national capital has granted interim relief to actor-turned-politician Nusrat Jahan and film producer Debashish Das Gupta by staying a magistrate’s direction to register a First Information Report (FIR) in connection with an alleged cheating case filed by a private firm.
Court Examines Challenge to Magistrate’s Directive
The order was passed by Additional Sessions Judge Vishal Singh while hearing a revision petition challenging the April 8 directive issued by a magisterial court. The earlier ruling had instructed the Station House Officer (SHO) of Badarpur police station to lodge an FIR against both individuals based on a complaint lodged by Zenith Media Scope Pvt Ltd.
During the proceedings, the sessions court observed that the matter required closer scrutiny before any coercive steps were taken, leading to the temporary suspension of the FIR registration order.
Investment Dispute Linked to Film Project
According to case details presented before the court, the dispute stems from a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed on June 8, 2023. Under the agreement, Zenith Media Scope Pvt Ltd invested ₹2 crore in a Bengali film project initially titled “Mental”, later released as “Sentimental”, produced by Debashish Das Gupta.
The complainant alleged that the terms of the MoU were violated, accusing the producer of cheating and financial misconduct in relation to the investment.
Partial Refund and Commercial Failure Cited
In the revision petition, the defense argued that the film, released in January 2024, did not perform well commercially. It was further submitted that Gupta had already returned approximately ₹78.25 lakh to the company from the total investment, indicating partial compliance and absence of criminal intent.
The petition emphasized that the dispute was largely financial and contractual in nature, questioning the need for criminal proceedings at this stage.
Actor’s Role Questioned in Legal Plea
A key contention raised in the revision plea was the inclusion of Nusrat Jahan in the FIR directive. The defense pointed out that she was not a signatory to the MoU between the production house and the complainant company, arguing that her implication lacked a direct contractual basis.
Next Hearing Awaited
With the interim stay now in place, the sessions court is expected to further examine the merits of the case, including the nature of the agreement and the extent of each party’s involvement. The outcome of the revision petition will determine whether the FIR proceedings will move forward or be set aside.
The case highlights the growing intersection of film financing disputes and criminal litigation, where contractual disagreements increasingly find their way into the legal system.