JUDGMENT :

SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. The present judgment was reserved on 15.12.2025 at the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench during the rotational sitting, and in accordance with the roster assigned, thereby. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the parties submitted their written submissions, the last of which were filed on 17.12.2025. The judgment is being pronounced on the first working day of the Court after the conclusion of the winter vacations.

2. The present petitions are filed for quashing & setting aside the FIR No.213/2025 registered at Police Station Bhupalpura, District Udaipur for the offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS, 2023) and entire proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR. Taking note of the fact that the present petitions are intrinsically interlinked, arising out of the same issue and seeking identical reliefs, the Court deemed it appropriate to club the present petitions for joint consideration. Accordingly, the same are being adjudicated by way of this common judgment. It is clarified that the present judgment shall apply mutatis mutandis to both the petitions.

3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the principal accused i.e. petitioner No.1, namely Shri Vikram Praveen Bhatt, is a well-known and reputed film maker in the Indian Film Industry, and petitioner Nos.2 to 5 in SBCRLMP No.10167/2025 are close relatives and/or business partners associated with him. Further, the petitioners in the connected SBCRLMP No.10149/2025, namely Shri Gangeshwar Lal Shrivastava and Shri Ashok Dubey, are duly elected office bearers of the Federation of Western India Cine Employees (hereinafter referred to as “FWICE”); they were, at the relevant point of time, discharging their official functions as Treasurer and Chairman of the Dispute Redressal Committee respectively, and were required to facilitate resolution of disputes inter se between the members and complainants strictly in accordance with Clause 17A of the governing provisions, which deals with the constitution and functioning of dispute settlement committees.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 were introduced to each other through a common acquaintance, namely Shri Dinesh Katariya, in the month of April, 2024. It was further submitted that respondent No.2, who is the present complainant, expressed his intention to produce a biopic based on his own life however, subsequently his wife expired. It was further contended that discussions in this regard were initiated between the parties; and pursuant thereto, on 24.05.2024, a First Term Sheet Agreement was executed between VSB LLP, a firm of petitioner No.1, and Indira Enterprises, belonging to respondent No.2, for the production of two films, with a total proposed investment of Rs. 40 Crore. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that the said agreement specifically contained a clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction upon the Courts at Mumbai in the event of any dispute arising between the parties.

5. It was further submitted that subsequently, on 21.06.2024, an Addendum Term Sheet was executed between the parties, whereby the scope of collaboration was expanded to include the production of four films, upon an additional investment of Rs. 7 Crore. Learned counsel further submitted that in the month of September, 2024, a grand launch event was organised at JW Marriott, Mumbai, wherein the production of the said four films was publicly announced. It was also contended that on 21.03.2025, one of the films was completed; however, upon its release in March, 2025, the film did not perform as expected commercially. Consequently, respondent No.2 unilaterally rolled back the finance model earlier contemplated under the agreements and ignored his own contractual obligations, thereby committing breach on his part.

6. It was submitted that as a consequence of