Kannada actor Dhruva Sarja booked in ₹9.58cr cheating case

Kannada film star Dhruva Sarja (Martin) has been booked in a cheating case by the Amboli Police.

The complaint was filed by renowned director and producer Raghavendra Hegde, who accused Sarja of duping him of ₹9.58cr.

The allegations stem from a failed collaboration between the two that began in 2016 after the success of Hegde’s first film.

 

Hegde’s statement reveals persistent collaboration requests from Sarja

 

In his statement to the police, Hegde revealed that Sarja had been persistently requesting a collaboration from 2016 to 2018.

“Sarja continuously pursued me to work together from 2016 to 2018 and also gave me the script of a film (The Soldier),” he said.

Eventually, Hegde agreed to collaborate after Sarja’s repeated requests and insistence.

 

Hegde borrowed money at high interest rates for flat purchase

 

Hegde also revealed that Sarja had requested ₹3cr before signing a contract.

“Then one day, Sarja requested me to give him ₹3cr before signing a contract with him, so that he could buy a flat for himself,” Hegde said.

Believing in Sarja’s commitment, Hegde arranged the money by borrowing at high interest rates and transferred ₹3.15cr to Sarja through his production companies and personal funds.

 

Sarja compelled me to make payments to 3rd parties: Hegde

 

Hegde has said that after receiving the money, Sarja sought multiple extensions and later became unresponsive even after the COVID-19 lockdown was lifted.

He claims that the actor also compelled him to make additional payments to third parties, including scriptwriters and publicity consultants. This pushed the total expenditure to over ₹3.43cr.

Eventually, Sarja allegedly withdrew from the project, stopped taking calls, escaped meetings, and expressed his inability to proceed.

 

Total losses exceed ₹9.58cr, claims Hegde

 

Acting on Hegde’s complaint, the Amboli Police registered a case against Sarja under Sections 316(2) (criminal breach of trust) and 318(4) (cheating and dishonest inducement to deliver property).

Leave a Comment