Archive · 26 Aug 2026
Mumbai Court Upholds Dismissal of Sunny Leone Commission Case
A talent coordinator said he helped Sunny Leone get a role in a Telugu movie.
He said Sunny Leone, her husband and their manager agreed to pay him a commission.
He claimed they paid him some money but not everything he believed he was owed.
He filed a complaint accusing them of several crimes.
An Andheri magistrate rejected the complaint in October 2024.
The coordinator asked a sessions court to review that decision.
The sessions judge said the disagreement looked like a business-contract problem.
The judge found there was not enough evidence to prove the alleged crimes and dismissed the challenge.
The Dindoshi Sessions Court upheld dismissal of a complaint against Sunny Leone, Daniel Weber and manager Sunny Rajani.
Complainant Omprakash Shreenarayan Lal Jain said he facilitated Leone’s role in a Telugu film.
Jain alleged the parties agreed to pay him commission from a total consideration of Rs 1.75 crore.
He claimed partial payments were made but an outstanding amount and commission remained unpaid.
The court said the dispute was commercial and did not establish cheating, criminal breach of trust or intimidation.
- Who
- Sunny Leone, Daniel Weber and manager Sunny Rajani were accused by talent coordinator Omprakash Shreenarayan Lal Jain.
- What
- The Dindoshi Sessions Court dismissed Jain’s criminal revision application and upheld rejection of his complaint.
- When
- The challenged magistrate’s order was passed on October 10, 2024; the sessions ruling date is not stated.
- Where
- The proceedings were before the Andheri magistrate and the Dindoshi Sessions Court in Mumbai.
- Why
- The sessions court found the dispute was rooted in a commercial contract and lacked evidence of the alleged criminal offenses.
Complainant’s Position
Court’s Finding
Unpaid commission
Complainant’s Position
Jain alleged that the parties failed to pay his outstanding amount and agreed commission after he facilitated Sunny Leone’s role in a Telugu film.
Court’s Finding
The court treated the matter as a commercial-contract dispute, saying the documents showed at most a breach of contract.
Alleged criminal conduct
Complainant’s Position
Jain sought prosecution for cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation, and argued that the magistrate had rejected his complaint without properly applying its mind.
Court’s Finding
The sessions judge said Jain had not led evidence establishing the essential ingredients of the alleged offenses and found no illegality, material irregularity or perversity in the magistrate’s decision.
- Judge
- Additional Sessions Judge P A Sane
- Complainant
- Omprakash Shreenarayan Lal Jain
- Accused
- Sunny Leone, Daniel Weber and Sunny Rajani
- Alleged commission basis
- A percentage-based incentive from total consideration of Rs 1.75 crore
- Alleged offenses
- Indian Penal Code sections 406, 420 and 506(II)
- Earlier decision
- An Andheri Judicial Magistrate First Class rejected the complaint on October 10, 2024
- Final outcome
- The sessions court dismissed Jain’s criminal revision application
