Tuesday, July, 23,2024

Latest News

Digangana Suryavanshi files police complaint against Manish Harishankar under IPC section 420, 406, 509, 499, 500, 503, 506, 63, 199, 211

Actress Digangana Suryavanshi has firmly rubbished the false allegations made against her by Manish Harishankar, the producer/director of the web show "Showstopper." Digangana has filed a defamation case and a police complaint against Manish Harishankar. Manish had earlier accused Digangana with “extortion” and “criminal breach of trust” but after Digangana opens up, it turns out that Digangana had gotten Akshay Kumar’s approval to come on board as a presenter for showstopper under a business deal which Manish could not honour after committing. 

Digangana finally speaks: 
"Manish’s narrative is his twisted imagination, it’s all untrue. A cheap publicity stunt of simply dragging names, clearly he’s trying to find a bakra so he can bail out from not being able to sell the show even after more than two years. I don’t want to waste any more time explaining further, I’ve already wasted too much time trying to help him".

Digangana's lawyer, Rajendra Mishra also issued a firm statement : 
"We would like to officially quote that all the allegations made against our client Digangana are absolutely baseless and an outcome of someone’s criminal intention and trying to cover up their own shortcomings.  Our client has known Manish for 7 years and is an actress on his series “showstopper”, when Manish was in a situation where he clearly couldn’t help himself , he asked for help from our client and proposed a business deal where his team had executed an MOU between him and our client. Strangely, Manish Harishankar doesn't understand that extortion doesn't happen in legal binding; it's called business. Under the terms of the MOU. Our client had gotten a presenter on board, and honoured her side of the commitment."
"Our client got the episodes viewed by the presenter, the episodes weren’t liked by the presenter but then Manish proposed to our client that he’ll make all creative changes to presenters satisfaction. Which is when our client further requested the presenter and after re-editing the show (for which our client invested 4 days at the edit suit) the presenter watched the episodes and  agreed to present the show, although a lot of changes were still required, but Manish promised to fix them after their agreement. 
Manish was given a rough draft contract as confirmation of the deal, the draft had to undergo many changes which were already informed to Manish. Manish committed payment timeline and failed the timelines trice ! Our client along the way realised that Manish had issues in the money to honour the deal, his financier had asked him to provide NOC or contracts of all the other financiers if he needed any more funding, and Manish could not provide that to his financier which is why no money was released and the deal was called off".
"Our client hasn’t taken a single penny from Manish for the presenter deal. He claimed that our client had only traveled with his editor, again false, our client had traveled with her mother and Manish’s editor. The episodes were viewed in the presence of our client , her mom, presenter and presenter’s team. Any claims otherwise are simply made with the intention to malign our clients reputation."
"The iPad which Manish claims to be with our client , he very much knew that the iPad is not with our client. In fact our client received the iPad back from the team, and msged Manish to get it picked. Manish has still not gotten the it picked, we wonder why so much drama. He claims that our client did not establish any contact with the presenter - it’s untrue as the presenters team had visited Manish’s office, his editor had met with the presenter. When Manish could not arrange the money required for the execution of the deal, he asked to meet the presenter out of the blue and our client had realised he’s only making false claims and it would be embarrassing to introduce him knowing that the deal is falling flat".
"Manish has spread false quotes in the name of our client, tarnished her reputation, made false claims in the media, leaked a business deal proposal, signed a false MOU with a commitment of having money when there was none, cheated by not returning/cancelling the MOU he has , didn’t pay our client’s actors fee yet while he falsely claims that he has, in fact our clients staff hasn’t been paid, defamed our client, leaked out clients home address, trapped her in a situation voluntarily and much more. 
 we’ve filed police complaint against him under IPC sections 509, 406, 420, 499, 500, 503, 506, 63, 199,  211.  
We have also sent him a defamation notice. 
Unlike Manish , we have evidence of all transparent communication. Manish is clearly at fault and has the audacity to spread just false information".


509 is intending to insult the modesty of any women. 
406 criminal breach of trust. 
420 cheating and dishonesty. 
499 criminal defamation 
500 criminal defamation punishment 
503 criminal intimidation 
506 criminal intimidation punishment 
63 giving false information 
199 false statements 
211 to make false charge of offence made with intent to injure

  Share on

Related News