Arushi Nishank daughter of former Uttarakhand CM Ramesh Pokhriyal swindled of Rs.4 crore
Arushi Nishank daughter of former Uttarakhand CM Ramesh Pokhriyal swindled of Rs.4 crore
Arushi Nishank, daughter of Uttarakhand ex-chief minister and former Union education minister Ramesh Pokhriyal Nishank was swindled of Rs.4 crores by a Mumbai-based production house on the pretext of offering a a role in a movie.
Arushi has filed an FIR at Kotwali police station in Dehradun..
As per Arushi Nishank Mansi and Varun Bagla of Mini Films Private Limited approached her at her Dehradun residence with an offer of a role in an upcoming movie.
The production house had earlier produced the 2022 crime-thriller ‘Forensic’ . Relying on them, she invested in the movie, but finally “dropped”,the FIR states, adding that, on confronting them, she was “mocked” for her Garhwali background and “threatened”.
They introduced themselves as directors of Mini Film Private Limited and stated that they were producing a film featuring actors Shanaya Kapoor and Vikrant Massey. They offered her significant role in the film but said that she would only get this role if she invested
Rs 5 crore in the project. They assured her that this investment would entitle their firm to a 20 percent profit share, estimated to be over Rs 15 crore,
The couple has been booked for extortion, cheating, forgery and criminal intimidation, among other sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
In her complaint, Arushi, who has appeared in music videos, claims that the producers told her that if she was not satisfied with the role, her investment would be returned with an annual interest of
15 percent. The couple allegedly signed an agreement with her production house Himshree Films and eventually took Rs 4 crore in three instalments, ensuring to promote her on their official social media pages.
They made further demand of Rs 2 crore from her firm without fulfilling their earlier commitments. On February 5, she was informed through their representative that the film’s shoot in India was completed and the remaining shoot would be done in Europe. He also said another actress had been selected for her role
She further went on to add that the the accused harassed and threatened to kill her and her family and defamed her publicly by mocking her Garhwali background with body-shaming comments.
They even threatened to file false cases against her father and meet if she filed a complaint or demanded her money back.
According to Dehradun Senior Superintendent of Police Ajai Singh the police were looking into it and they will call parties concerned for their statements and if needed, police will reach Mumbai for evidence collection. But if any derogatory remarks are made against the complainant based on her place of residence, strict action will be taken as per law.
Response from Mini Films
In his response to the queries Indian Express from Varun Bagla claimed it was a “civil dispute and the allegations are false”.
In its official statement issued later in the night, Mini Films claimed it was Arushi who approached them to work on the film “for a small role in exchange of investing in the film, stating that investing in the film would help her achieve this”, and also accusing Arushi of “threatening” them.
“She (Arushi) claimed it would also position her as the face of Uttarakhand and boost her political career too. To persuade us, she highlighted her alleged strong ties with Uttarakhand CM Pushkar Singh Dhami, mentioning to us how she had invited him to the set of her web series ‘Life Hill Gayi’ and promised to do the same for our film. However, once she came on board, she began threatening and demanding a larger role as a parallel lead of the film.
While the team was shooting in Dehradun, Arushi’s husband Abhinav Pant invited them to his construction site near Dehradun Airport, it further said.
“A car took us to a half-constructed building, where he threatened us to give Arushi a parallel lead role in the film. Refusing to bow down to their pressure, we removed her from the film, terminating her involvement. The threats to defame were given to us if we did not meet their demands adding that the production house’s lawyers were “taking appropriate legal recourse for the same”.
News Edit KV Raman
