Bengaluru: A Bengaluru court has found businessman Rahul Tonse, also known as Rahul Shetty, guilty of cheating Kannada film actor Sanjana Galrani of Rs 45 lakh under the pretext of investing it in real estate.
The court directed the 36-year-old to repay Rs 61.4 lakh to the actress. Passing the orders, Judge PS Santosh Kumar recently directed Tonse to undergo simple imprisonment of six months if he failed to repay the money.
“It is made clear that the accused would not be absolved from his liability to pay the compensation amount of Rs 61.4 lakhs even if he undergoes the default sentence,” the judge observed. According to police, Tonse is abroad, and they have issued a notice in his name.
Five years ago, police arrested Tonse in an alleged drug-peddling case involving film actors.
Galrani’s case dates back to October 2021 when Indiranagar police, based on the court’s direction, filed a cheating case against Tonse and his parents Ramakrishna and Rageshwari. According to Galrani, Tonse took Rs 45 lakh from her in different instalments in 2018 and 2019 after promising higher returns by investing it in land business. When Tonse failed to keep his promise and started avoiding Galrani, she approached the court.
“The counsel for the complainant argued that the accused issued cheques in question to the complainant towards the repayment of investment made by the complainant on his assurance that if the complainant invests in site properties in Bengaluru, she would benefit. On presentation of the cheques, they were dishonoured for the reason ‘funds insufficient’. In spite of several legal notices, the accused did not pay the amount. Hence, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act,” the judge observed.
Also, the court observed that Tonse, who issued two cheques — Rs 30 lakh and Rs 15 lakh —stopped the payment for the Rs 30 lakh cheque while the cheque for Rs 15 lakh was dishonoured for insufficient funds.
Further, the court observed, “Accused Tonse has taken a defence saying he has not been served with the legal notice. It is relevant to mention here that the accused, though disputed the service of legal notice, is not disputing the address shown and the returned postal cover. There is nothing on record except the denial of the accused on the service of the legal notice. Further, the accused has not disputed the summons served by this court to the same address. The Supreme Court has observed that in such circumstances, the accused can, within 15 days of receiving the summons, make the payment. Then, on that basis, the accused can submit to the court that the complaint be rejected. But no such compliance could be seen by the accused here.”
MSID:: 120036386 413 |