HC Stays FIR Against SRK and Deepika Padukone in Case Filed By Unhappy Alcazar Owner
The Rajasthan High Court has stayed proceedings in a criminal case against Bollywood actors Shah Rukh Khan and Deepika Padukone over their association with Hyundai Motor India. The interim order, delivered on September 10 by Justice Sudesh Bansal, halts police investigation into an FIR filed at Bharatpur’s Mathura Gate police station. The FIR had named the actors alongside Hyundai’s senior executives under sections related to cheating, breach of trust, and conspiracy.
The case was initiated by lawyer Kirti Singh, who purchased a Hyundai Alcazar SUV in June 2022 for ₹23.97 lakh from a dealership in Kundli, Haryana. Singh alleged that within months the vehicle developed major issues including high noise levels, vibrations at speed, and repeated engine management warnings on the dashboard. According to him, dealership staff said these were inherent problems with the model and not repairable.
Singh claimed repeated attempts to get the vehicle repaired or replaced failed. After approaching Hyundai directly without success, he filed a private complaint before Bharatpur’s Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. The magistrate then directed the police to register an FIR under Section 420 of the IPC and other provisions.
The inclusion of Shah Rukh Khan and Deepika Padukone in the FIR reflects a legal strategy focusing on celebrity endorsers. Singh stated that Hyundai’s advertisements featuring the actors strongly influenced his decision to purchase the Alcazar, linking their promotional role to the alleged fraud. This line of argument mirrors the evolving consumer protection framework that considers endorsements as significant in shaping buyer choices.
Shah Rukh Khan has been associated with Hyundai since 1998, appearing in numerous campaigns for more than two decades. Deepika Padukone joined as a brand ambassador in December 2023, appearing with Khan in joint campaigns. Her later association forms the basis of her defence that her endorsement came after Singh’s purchase and therefore could not have influenced it.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Khan, argued that brand ambassadors promote products based on information provided by manufacturers and cannot be held responsible for production quality or technical defects. He stressed the difference between endorsement duties and manufacturing accountability.
Padukone’s legal team made a timeline-based argument. Since Singh bought his vehicle in 2022 and her endorsement began only in late 2023, they argued her involvement was irrelevant to the complaint.
The defence also pointed to Singh’s continued use of the SUV. Court filings show the vehicle had clocked over 67,000 kilometres in nearly three years. Lawyers for the actors argued that sustained usage undermines claims that the SUV was fundamentally unsafe or defective.
Court’s Observations and Wider Impact
In his order, Justice Bansal observed that the FIR appeared to lack factual basis, casting doubt on whether the allegations against the actors and Hyundai executives could meet criminal standards. While the case has not been dismissed, the stay order provides temporary relief for all parties named, including Hyundai’s top executives.
The matter is being closely watched because of its broader implications. A 2023 Supreme Court ruling had signalled that celebrity endorsers could be held accountable for misleading promotions, prompting concerns across industries. The current case highlights how that precedent might apply when a product is alleged to have defects rather than simply being marketed with exaggerated claims.
Consumer advocates argue that endorsers wield real influence and therefore carry responsibility when their promotions lead to purchases. Industry observers, however, caution that holding celebrities criminally liable for manufacturing defects could deter them from endorsement deals, complicating marketing strategies and raising costs.
In the automotive sector, where celebrity promotions are widespread, the outcome could shape how endorsement agreements are structured. Celebrities may be forced to demand stronger contractual protections or even independent product checks before associating with brands.
The case will return to court on September 25, when judges will consider whether the stay should be made permanent or if proceedings should continue. The decision could set an important precedent for the liability of celebrity endorsers not only in the auto industry but across consumer goods sectors.