Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has granted significant relief to Bollywood icons Shah Rukh Khan and Deepika Padukone by putting a hold on an FIR filed against them in Bharatpur. The complaint originated from a local car owner who claimed that Hyundai Motors sold him a faulty vehicle.

The FIR, which was registered recently, implicated both actors along with six officials from the company, alleging that they misled consumers as brand ambassadors for Hyundai. In response, Khan and Padukone sought the court's intervention to dismiss the FIR, arguing that their responsibilities as brand ambassadors did not extend to the technical aspects of the vehicles.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Shah Rukh Khan, argued that the actor had no direct involvement with the quality of Hyundai cars, asserting that it was unjust to hold him accountable in this matter.

Similarly, advocate Madhav Mitra, who represented Deepika Padukone, contended that she should not be held liable for any manufacturing flaws.

During the proceedings in Jodhpur, Justice Sudesh Bansal noted that the FIR lacked a solid factual foundation. Consequently, the court issued a stay on the FIR, offering interim relief to both actors and the company officials.

The next court session is set for September 25.

This case arose from a complaint by a Bharatpur resident who accused Hyundai Motors of selling a defective car, leading to financial losses. The FIR claimed that since Shah Rukh Khan and Deepika Padukone endorsed the brand, they were also responsible for misleading customers.

However, the actors argue that the allegations are not legally valid, as endorsing a product does not imply liability for defects.

In the Rajasthan High Court, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal represented Shah Rukh Khan, while Senior Advocate Madhav Mitra stood for Deepika Padukone, and Senior Advocate Vivek Raj Bajwa defended Hyundai MD Anso Kim.

After considering the arguments, the bench granted interim relief to all petitioners by staying the FIR filed in Bharatpur. The petitions from Shah Rukh Khan, Deepika Padukone, Anso Kim, and another company official highlighted the absence of specific allegations against them.

The defense further pointed out that the complainant, advocate Kirti Singh, had been using the vehicle for nearly three years and had driven it over 67,000 kilometers. They argued that if he had legitimate concerns, he should have approached consumer court rather than filing a criminal complaint. The petitioners maintained that pursuing a criminal case under these circumstances was not legally justified.