Disposed¶25

Vikram Pravin Bhatt v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC4 Dec 2025CRL.M.C./5473/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.M.C. 5473/2025; Delhi High Court; Sanjeev Narula; Section 528 BNSS 2023 quashing; EOW Economic Offences Wing Delhi summons notice territorial jurisdiction; Mumbai Police forwarding; cheating complaint; Housefull Motion Picture Pvt Ltd; Loneranger Productions / Loneranger Picture; Hare Krishna Media Tech; Vikram Pravin Bhatt; Krishna Bhatt; Sanjeev Bindal; Netflix Amazon Reliance OTT contracts; development agreement 01.08.2021; production agreement 29.01.2022; exclusive jurisdiction Mumbai courts; INR 18.5 crores / Rs 18 Cr investment; petition infructuous; disposed with pending applications; merits not commented; rights and contentions reserved.

What did the court decide?

None; the petition was disposed of as the relief sought had become infructuous, with no ruling on merits and all rights and contentions reserved. ¶25

Vikram Pravin Bhatt Vs Union of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the petition was disposed of as the relief sought had become infructuous, with no ruling on merits and all rights and contentions reserved.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the summons issued by EOW, Delhi are without territorial jurisdiction, given that the agreements between the parties were executed in Mumbai and all financial transactions took place within the jurisdiction of Mumbai. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

EOW, Delhi has expressly acknowledged its lack of territorial jurisdiction and has already forwarded the complaint to the Mumbai Police for further action; consequently, the Petitioner's challenge to the summons is no longer necessary.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Since the challenge to the summons is no longer necessary, the relief sought in the present petition has become infructuous.

¶24

Key takeaways

The Court has not commented on the merits of the case; all rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Sanjeev Narula, J.), Order dated 04.12.2025 in CRL.M.C. 5473/2025 (with CRL.M.As. 23451-23452/2025): Petition under Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Vikram Pravin Bhatt seeking quashing of a notice dated 01.07.2025 whereby EOW, New Delhi summoned him to join an enquiry into a cheating complaint lodged by Respondent No. 6 (per status report, by Sanjeev Bindal, Authorized Representative for M/s Housefull Motion Picture Pvt. Ltd.), alleging inducement to invest INR 18.5 crores and cheating. Petitioner contended EOW lacked territorial jurisdiction since the agreements were executed and transactions occurred in Mumbai, with exclusive jurisdiction vested in Mumbai courts. Per EOW status report, the cause of action arose in Mumbai and the complaint stood forwarded to Mumbai Police. Holding that the challenge was thereby rendered unnecessary and the relief infructuous, the Court disposed of the petition along with pending applications, expressly reserving all rights and contentions and expressing no opinion on merits.

¶1

$~22

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 5473/2025 & CRL.M.As. 23451/2025, 23452/2025

¶4

VIKRAM PRAVIN BHATT .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Mr. S. Mathur and Mr. Jatin Kumar Gaur, Advocates. versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP for State. Inspector Satyabir Singh, P.S. EOW. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Advocate for R- 5. Mr. Sanjeev Bindal, Advocate for R- 6.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶8

O R D E R % 04.12.2025

¶9

The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeks quashing of notice dated 1^st July, 2025 issued to the Petitioner by the Economic Offences Wing,¹ New Delhi. By the said notice, the Petitioner has been summoned to join the enquiry pursuant to a complaint lodged by Respondent No. 6, alleging that the Petitioner induced him to invest a sum of INR 18.5 crores with the complainant’s company and thereafter cheated him of the said amount.

¶10

The Petitioner contends that the summons issued by the EOW are without territorial jurisdiction, as the agreements between the parties were

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/12/2025 at 11:29:25

¶13

executed in Mumbai and all financial transactions in question also took place within the jurisdiction of Mumbai. It is, therefore, submitted that the EOW, Delhi lacks jurisdiction to initiate the enquiry, rendering the impugned summons liable to be set aside. 3. In response, a status report has been filed by EOW, Delhi to the following effect:

¶14

2.1. The present petition has been filed by Mr. Vikram Pravin Bhatt for quashing of the complaint filed by Mr. Sanjeev Bindal, Authorized Representative for M/s Housefull Motion Picture Pvt. Ltd, at 538, 7th Floor, Tower-3, Mt. Kailash Appts East of Kailash, South Delhi against Mr. Vikram Pravin Bhatt and others.

¶15

2.2. Mr. Sanjeev Bindal in his aforementioned complaint alleged that the complainant, M/s Housefull Motion Pictures Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in the business of producing, buying, selling, importing, exporting, screening or otherwise dealing in Television programs, films, cinematographic etc. and alleged M/s Loneranger Productions Pvt. Ltd. (now renamed to M/s Hare Krishna Media Tech Pvt. Ltd.) is a production house which is engaged in the business of producing feature, web series, web shows, digital web series and television shows.

¶16

2.3. It has been alleged that M/s Loneranger Productions Pvt. Ltd. represented to the complainant about the execution of a number of written contracts by the said alleged company with the various OTT platform and TV channels including Netflix, Amazon, Reliance etc. for demo, and is having pre-approved projects in hand which would generate substantial amount of revenue for the alleged.

¶17

2.4. Believing the warranties, representation and promises of alleged the complainant made investments to the tune of Rs 18 Cr. The development agreement dated 01^st August, 2021 and production agreement dated 29^th January, 2022 were executive between them. Complaint further alleged that Vikram Pravin Bhatt and Mrs. Krishna Bhatt neither started work on the movies which are annexed to the agreements nor returned the invested amount with the agreed upon profit and cheated to complainant.

¶18

2.5. An enquiry in this matter revealed that total three (03) agreements dated 1^st August, 2021, 31^st May, 2021 and 29^th January, 2022 respectively were executed between alleged company M/s Loneranger Picture Pvt. Ltd and the complainant House Motion Pictures Pvt. Ltd. in Mumbai.

¶19

1 “EOW”

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/12/2025 at 11:29:25

¶22

2.6. Further, as per respective arbitration clauses of these agreements it was mutually agreed by both the parties that in case of any dispute, difference, proceedings or claim of whatever nature arising out of or in connection with this Agreements, shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of India and shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Mumbai courts only.

¶23

2.7. As cause of action arose in Mumbai, Maharashtra and the EOW, New Delhi lacked territorial jurisdiction in this matter, the complaint was forwarded to Mumbai Police, for necessary action at their end.”

¶24

In light of the fact that EOW, Delhi has now expressly acknowledged its lack of territorial jurisdiction and has already forwarded the complaint to the Mumbai Police for further action, the Petitioner’s challenge to the summons is no longer necessary. The relief sought in the present petition has, therefore, become infructuous.

¶25

The present petition is accordingly disposed of along with pending applications.

¶26

The Court has not commented on the merits of the case. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.

¶27

DECEMBER 4, 2025 as

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/12/2025 at 11:29:25

Vikram Pravin Bhatt v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Pravin Bhatt v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Kumar Vs the State of Delhi & Anr.

Salman Khan Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Pulkit Chhabra Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Mr Shyam Sunder Sehgal and Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Kajal and Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Azeem Choudhary Alias Mujeebssan and Another Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Ors.