Chennai Firm Moves Supreme Court Seeking Restoration Of Cheating Case Against Actor Rajinikanth's Wife Latha

A Chennai-based company has approached the Supreme Court seeking restoration of an alleged cheating case against actor Rajinikanth's wife Latha Rajinikanth.

A bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and JB Pardiwala agreed to post the special leave petition filed by M/s Ad Bureau Advertising Private Limited challenging the order of the Karnataka High Court, which had quashed the cheating case Latha, on September 8, 2023.

On August 2, 2022, the High Court had granted partial relief to Latha Rajinikanth, by quashing the cases for cheating and giving false evidence against her; but the High Court sustained the forgery case against her. It may be noted that she has also filed another SLP against the HC order to the extent it sustained the forgery case, which is also listed for September 8.

The complainant is based on an allegation that Latha Rajinikanth produced a forged document before a Civil Court in Bengaluru to obtain a media gag order regarding the reporting of a financial dispute over the payments for the 2014 film "Kochadaiiyaan", which was directed by Rajinikanth’s daughter Soundarya Rajinikanth.

The advertising company, the complainant in the case, alleged that another company M/s Mediaone Global Entertainment Limited, failed to honour the financial commitments with respect to the film. It was alleged that Latha had executed a guarantee on behalf M/s Mediaone Global Entertainment Limited and failed to fulfil the guarantee when the film went into losses.

She then knocked the doors of the civil Court at Bangalore against all the news agencies – 70 in number – seeking a restraint in publishing news with regard to allegations made her and her family. The injunction was granted in December 2014.

The complainant then filed the criminal complaint alleging that a forged document produced before the Civil Court at Bangalore in order to get jurisdiction to entertain the suit and obtain an order of injunction.

At the High Court, a single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed the Magistrate's order to the extent of taking cognizance of the final report under Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 196 (false evidence), 199 (false statement), and 420 (cheating).

The Court however sustained the order insofar as it takes cognizance under Section 463/465 of the IPC relating to the offence of forgery. 

As regards the cheating case, the High Court said that there was no allegation of inducement to part with the property of the complainant. Regarding Sections 196 and 199 IPC, the Court held that the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of those offences on a police final report as there should be a complaint in writing by the Court concerned.

The High Court, however, did not find grounds to interfere with the charges of forgery in the case. It said that the bar of cognizance is not attracted when the document is said to be forged outside the court. “Therefore, the allegation under Section 463 of the IPC so made against the petitioner and the cognisance taken by the learned magistrate only insofar as it concerns Section 463 of the IPC cannot be interfered with,” it said

Case title: M/S AD BUREAU ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. vs. LATHA RAJANIKANTH SLP(Crl) No. 009818 - / 2022, LATHA RAJANIKANTH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA SLP(Crl) 8327/2022