The Vadodara FIR registered in 2018 has resurfaced, highlighting allegations of a franchise investment fraud. Filed at the DCB Police Station Vadodara, the complaint names Kashiff Sardar Hashim Khan Malik, Viren Kalyanbhai Gada, and Satish Diwakar Jadhav. The complainant alleged that substantial payments were made based on promises of franchise ventures that did not materialise. Police invoked IPC sections relating to cheating, breach of trust, and conspiracy. Authorities recorded transactions across multiple years. The case remains subject to investigation and judicial process, with no determination of guilt established.

Vadodara FIR Case Details: 2018 Police Complaint Names Three in Alleged Franchise Investment Fraud

A 2018 FIR registered in Vadodara, Gujarat, alleges that a local businessman was induced to transfer large sums under a proposed franchise arrangement. The complaint names three individuals and cites cheating-related offences.

A Vadodara FIR case registered in December 2018 has resurfaced after court-linked records and police documents highlighted allegations of an investment fraud involving a proposed commercial franchise venture. The complaint was lodged at the DCB Police Station, Vadodara.

According to the First Information Report, the case was registered as FIR No. I/28/2018 on December 11, 2018. Police invoked Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The FIR identifies complainant Mihir Hareshkumar Patel, who stated he was engaged in business activities and resided in the Vadodara area. His statement forms the basis of the police complaint.

Three Named in Vadodara FIR Complaint

The FIR names three accused individuals. They are listed as Kashiff Sardar Hashim Khan Malik, Viren Kalyanbhai Gada, and Satish Diwakar Jadhav, according to the police document reviewed by Sprouts News.

Police records indicate the alleged offence period extended from January 1, 2016, until December 11, 2018. Investigators noted the complaint concerned transactions spread across multiple meetings and representations.

The complainant alleged he was introduced to business opportunities linked to a company referred to in the complaint as “K Brands Pvt. Ltd.” and related hospitality projects.

According to the FIR narrative, Patel claimed he was persuaded that franchise opportunities involving spas, salons, restaurants, and hospitality outlets would generate substantial returns and rapid commercial expansion.

Arrest and Custody in the Vadodara Case

Court-linked records indicate Kashiff Sardar Hashim Khan Malik was arrested in connection with the Vadodara FIR and remained in judicial custody for around ten days during proceedings linked to the matter.

Any arrest in an FIR investigation does not amount to a conviction. Criminal liability can only be determined after due process, evidence review, and adjudication before a competent court.

Alleged Payments Mentioned in FIR

The complainant stated he transferred significant sums after assurances were allegedly made by the accused persons. Police documents list several transaction heads tied to separate business concepts.

Those amounts include ₹30.15 lakh linked to one project, ₹307.35 lakh linked to another restaurant proposal, and ₹30.10 lakh under a separate arrangement, the complaint states.

The FIR further alleges that an additional ₹2.02 crore was collected over time. The complainant claimed that despite repeated assurances, the promised ventures did not become operational.

Police records also mention meetings in Vadodara and Mumbai, where business proposals were allegedly discussed. Several addresses and commercial locations are referenced within the complaint narrative.

Why IPC Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120B Matter

Section 420 IPC relates to cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property. Section 406 concerns criminal breach of trust, while Section 120B addresses criminal conspiracy allegations.

Section 409 is a more serious breach-of-trust provision generally applied where property is entrusted in a fiduciary or business capacity. Final applicability depends on evidence and prosecution review.

Registration of an FIR does not amount to guilt. It marks the beginning of a criminal investigation, during which police collect statements, documents, banking records, and other material evidence.

The final page of the FIR states that the case was registered and an investigation was taken up by the concerned officer attached to DCB Police Station, Vadodara.

Wider Significance of the Vadodara FIR Case

Cases involving franchise investments often attract scrutiny because they combine branding promises, licensing fees, and expansion claims that may be difficult for investors to independently verify.

Legal experts frequently advise prospective investors to conduct due diligence on company registrations, audited finances, trademark ownership, and prior litigation before making substantial commercial payments.

This FIR may also draw attention because franchise-linked disputes increasingly involve multiple jurisdictions, especially where meetings, bank transfers, and company offices span several cities.

What Happens Next

Unless closed or quashed by a competent court, an FIR remains part of the public legal record. Subsequent developments may include charge sheets, discharge applications, settlements, or trial proceedings.

No judicial finding of guilt is recorded within the FIR itself. Any criminal liability would be determined only through due legal process before the appropriate court.

Sprouts News will continue tracking publicly available court and enforcement developments linked to this matter, including any future filings, police action, or responses from those named.

Also Read: RBI Fines Bandhan Bank & Muthoot Finance of ₹41.8 Lakh.

Kashiff Khan, Krishna Hardik Shah Controversies Case Details: Previous Cases and Public Records

Previous controversies linked to Kashiff Khan and Krishna Hardik Shah have drawn attention through police complaints, court filings, and investor allegations. No final guilt findings are recorded in the matters referenced.

Kashiff Khan and Krishna Hardik Shah have faced scrutiny in earlier controversies involving franchise investments, commercial disputes, and complaints filed before law-enforcement authorities in multiple jurisdictions over recent years.

Publicly available records show Kashiff Khan’s name surfaced in the 2018 Vadodara FIR alleging franchise-related inducement and financial irregularities tied to proposed hospitality business opportunities.

That Vadodara complaint cited IPC Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120B. Police records also indicated Kashiff Khan was arrested and spent around ten days in custody.

Separate complainants in other matters have alleged losses after investments linked to branding, hospitality, and lifestyle ventures associated with entities promoted through commercial marketing campaigns.

Krishna Hardik Shah Cases and Investor Complaints

Krishna Hardik Shah has also been named in business disputes and complaints involving financial transactions, partnership disagreements, and alleged non-fulfilment of promised commercial commitments.

Some complainants alleged that payments were collected for ventures that later faced delays, restructuring, or operational uncertainty, leading to demands for refunds and legal intervention.

As with all complaints and FIR-based allegations, inclusion of a name in police or court records does not establish criminal guilt or civil liability.

No consolidated judicial finding covering all allegations against rape accused Kashiff Khan or Krishna Hardik Shah has been identified from the matters discussed in public records reviewed.

Why These Controversies Matter

Repeated disputes involving franchise-style investment models often raise wider concerns about due diligence, contract transparency, licensing claims, and verification of commercial representations made to investors.

Legal experts typically advise investors to examine company filings, trademarks, litigation history, audited statements, and enforceable agreements before transferring substantial sums to promoters or intermediaries.

Sprouts News understands that several such matters remain subject to legal process, settlement discussions, or unresolved claims, depending on jurisdiction and procedural status.

What Happens Next

Any future developments may include fresh complaints, police action, court hearings, settlements, or exoneration, depending on evidence presented before competent authorities.

Until adjudicated by courts, allegations involving Kashiff Khan and Krishna Hardik Shah should be treated as claims under examination rather than proven facts.

Readers’ Appeal

Unmesh Gujarathi, an investigative journalist in Mumbai, has exposed the alleged scandal involving Kashiff Khan and his Fashion TV channel. For information, tips, documents, assistance, or media queries, call his dedicated team on 9322755098 today for verified updates and confidential support regarding this ongoing investigation and related developments across India.

Editorial Note:

This article is based on publicly available FIR records, court case references, and reports published by multiple media organisations. The information is presented in the context of ongoing investigations and public interest reporting. Sprouts News does not make any judicial determination regarding the individuals mentioned and does not intend to defame any person or organisation. Any individual seeking clarification or wishing to provide an official response may contact the editorial team with verifiable documentation. The information is presented for journalistic and informational purposes.