 has formally registered an FIR involving the serious charge of Section 420 against Shilpa Shetty and husband){kind=link}
Mumbai Police’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW) has escalated legal action against actress Shilpa Shetty and her husband, Raj Kundra, by invoking Section 420 (cheating) of the IPC following a complaint by a prominent businessman.
December 17, 2025: The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) has formally registered an FIR involving the serious charge of Section 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) against the high-profile couple. This follows an intensive investigation into a complaint filed by businessman Deepak Kothari, who alleges he was defrauded of over ₹60.48 crore.
Case Details:
The Allegation: Kothari claims that between 2015 and 2023, Shetty and Kundra persuaded him to invest nearly ₹60 crore into their now-defunct online retail venture, Best Deal TV Pvt Ltd.
Misuse of Funds: The complaint alleges that instead of being used for business expansion, the funds were diverted for the couple’s personal benefit.
Legal Shift: Investigators state that fresh electronic evidence and witness testimonies gathered have necessitated the addition of Section 420. This makes the case a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), potentially opening the door for the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to take over the money trail.
“Deposit ₹60 Crore or No Travel”: Bombay High Court
The couple’s legal woes have also impacted their personal freedom. Recently, Shilpa Shetty and Raj Kundra approached the Bombay High Court seeking permission to travel to London to visit Kundra’s ailing 79-year-old father.
However, a bench led by Justice Ajey S. Gadkari expressed concerns over their bona fides and the risk of them not returning to India. The court laid down a strict condition for travel:
The duo must either deposit the full ₹60.48 crore in court or provide a continuous bank guarantee from a nationalized bank for the same amount.
Their counsel argued that the dispute is purely civil and contractual, arising from a business failure exacerbated by demonetization in 2016. Despite these arguments, the court refused to suspend the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against them without the financial security.