Actor Zeishan Quadri named in a series of fraud complaints across two states
Zeishan Quadri, the actor and writer best known as “Definite” from Anurag Kashyap’s Gangs of Wasseypur, is at the center of multiple police cases that together paint a messy picture of stalled projects, disputed finances, and bitter fallouts. FIRs filed in Mumbai and Ranchi accuse him of cheating, non-payment of dues, and even mortgaging a borrowed car. Investigations are underway; Quadri has not issued a public statement in response to these latest allegations.
The most serious complaint, registered in December 2020 at Amboli police station in Mumbai, alleges that Quadri took around Rs 1.5 crore (some accounts say Rs 1.25 crore) from a co-producer and his associate for a promised web series, then diverted the funds to other expenses. Cops booked the case under Indian Penal Code Section 420, the cheating provision that deals with inducing delivery of property through dishonest means. The complainant told police the project stalled during the Covid-19 lockdown, but even after restrictions eased, the production did not move as promised.
Section 420 is a cognizable, non-bailable offense that can carry a prison term of up to seven years and a fine if a court finds guilt. At this stage, though, it remains an allegation. Police typically gather bank statements, contracts, communication trails, and witness accounts to determine if the money trail backs the charge of “cheating” rather than a civil dispute over a failed deal. The difference matters: not every collapsed production turns into a 420 case; investigators look for signs of intent and deception at the time of taking funds.
That Mumbai case is only one part of the story. In August 2022, television producer Shalini Chaudhary—associated with the crime anthology show Crime Patrol—filed a complaint alleging her Audi, valued at about Rs 38 lakh, was taken by Quadri and mortgaged without her knowledge for Rs 12 lakh. Chaudhary said she first met him in 2017 in connection with financing for Crime Patrol through his company, Friday to Friday, where his alleged spouse, Priyanka Bassi, was a partner. After she pressed for the return of the car, she claims she received threats and initially faced resistance in getting her FIR registered. Senior officer DCP Vishal Thakur later facilitated the registration of her complaint at Malad police, according to her account.
Mortgaging a vehicle not owned by the borrower raises a different legal track from Section 420: investigators look at whether there was misrepresentation to the lender, breach of trust related to property, and any intimidation to deter a complaint. Police typically trace the car’s hypothecation records and question the financier to piece together who knew what and when. If proved, it suggests a pattern of leveraging assets under false pretexts—again, a claim that needs evidence and legal testing.
A third case came from Jharkhand. In November 2022, Ranchi’s Hindpiri police station registered an FIR after Hotel AVN Grand alleged non-payment of dues totaling Rs 29 lakh. The hotel said rooms were booked in November 2020 for the shoot of a film titled Furrey, but despite repeated reminders and promises, the payment never came through. Staff told police Quadri stopped responding and his phone remained switched off. Hotels that host shoots often work on credit for repeat industry clients; when such credit is extended without airtight escrow arrangements, disputes can land in both civil and criminal lanes depending on the promises made and the documentation on record.
Put together, the complaints span two years and two states—Maharashtra and Jharkhand—and involve three different types of transactions: production financing for a web series, use and alleged mortgaging of a high-end car, and large hotel bills linked to a film shoot. Each will run its own course. Mumbai Police will handle the Amboli and Malad matters, while Ranchi Police will probe the hotel claim. If investigators think custodial questioning is necessary, they can move courts for warrants; defendants often seek anticipatory bail in such cases. None of that is public yet.
Quadri’s professional arc makes the allegations stand out. He co-wrote Gangs of Wasseypur and played a key role in its second part, earning a reputation as a gritty storyteller. He later directed Meeruthiya Gangsters and most recently worked on the screenplay of Chhalaang, directed by Hansal Mehta and starring Rajkummar Rao and Nushrat Bharucha. As his profile grew, so did his production ambitions—bringing him into a part of the industry where creative promise meets hard-nosed financing, contracts, and collections. That’s the world where misunderstandings can happen—and where intent, paper trails, and timelines decide whether a dispute stays civil or crosses into criminal.
How do these cases typically move? After registration of an FIR, the investigating officer records statements, retrieves digital evidence, and, if needed, issues notices under the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the Amboli case, that likely means combing through bank transfers, agreements for the web series, and correspondence on spending. If the money was spent on the project but delays mounted due to the pandemic, the defense could argue lack of dishonest intent at inception. If prosecutors find funds diverted for unrelated personal expenses from day one, that supports a cheating charge. The difference is subtle but critical.
For the Malad complaint about the Audi, police will match Chaudhary’s claim with loan or mortgage paperwork. Who signed the mortgage? What documents did the lender rely on? If the car’s owner did not authorize any of it, officers will look at whether forged or misleading papers were used. The allegation of threats adds a separate layer; if police corroborate it, that can attract additional sections. The timeline—when the car was borrowed, how long it stayed out, when the alleged mortgage happened—will be central to any charge sheet.
In Ranchi, the hotel’s claim rests on bookings made for a shoot in November 2020, right as the industry tried to restart under pandemic protocols. Productions often stagger payments: a booking advance, a mid-shoot tranche, and a balance at check-out. If the hotel provided rooms, crew meals, and facilities in good faith and has signed job sheets, the dues are easy to compute. What’s harder is proving criminality beyond a commercial dispute—unless there were promises or conduct pointing to deceit. Police will likely compare the hotel’s bills with any production ledger for Furrey and question unit managers who handled payments.
Why are we hearing about all this now? Partly because these matters are at different stages, and complainants talk when they feel stuck. In Chaudhary’s case, she publicly thanked DCP Vishal Thakur for stepping in, suggesting her complaint moved only after senior intervention. That’s not rare. FIR registration should be straightforward, but when actors and producers are involved, allegations often bounce between “settlement talks” and outright police action. Once an FIR is in, it’s on the record and the process takes over.
There’s also the perception problem. When the same name pops up in more than one case—different complainants, different transactions—police and courts look more closely at patterns. Defense teams, in turn, argue that success breeds opportunistic claims and that production work is messy, especially after Covid shut the industry for months. Both can be true. The legal test still comes down to documents, money flows, and the state of mind at the time agreements were made.
For the industry, these cases are a reminder to tighten paperwork. Even well-known faces should not receive advances without escrow or milestone-based releases backed by clear deliverables. Car loans, if any, must sit on proper authorization, not on trust or verbal assurances. And hotels accommodating film units need formal contracts, not email chains and visiting cards. When these safeguards fail, disputes drift from conference rooms to police stations.
As of now, there’s no official word from Quadri or his representatives on the specific allegations in Mumbai and Ranchi. No court has ruled on guilt. The three FIRs move at their own speed, and any arrest, anticipatory bail, or charge sheet will shape what happens next. For a man who helped script one of India’s most acclaimed crime sagas, the real-life legal drama now unfolding will hinge on facts that don’t care about star power—bank entries, signed papers, and who said what, when.
What the charges could mean and the road ahead
If prosecutors press the Section 420 case in Mumbai and a court eventually convicts, the law allows up to seven years in prison plus a fine. But getting there takes time. Financial cases often see attempts at settlement, especially when complainants just want their money back. Courts sometimes consider restitution while deciding bail or sentencing, though that depends on facts and judicial discretion.
In the car case, recovery of the vehicle and clarity on the mortgage will be key. If the car was mortgaged and the lender has a claim, unwinding that could require parallel civil steps even as the criminal probe runs. In Ranchi, the hotel could pursue both criminal and civil remedies—seeking payment through court orders while also cooperating with police. Cross-state matters can also lead to transfer applications or requests for coordination between investigating officers in Mumbai and Jharkhand.
For Quadri’s career, the immediate hit is reputational. Producers, platforms, and brands get risk-averse when police cases make headlines. Long term, the picture depends on outcomes. Acquittals or settlements quieten the noise; charge sheets and trials keep it alive. For now, the cases are in the investigation phase, and the only certainty is that more paperwork—bank records, call logs, and contracts—will surface before anyone reaches the next scene.