Folk Icon Mangli and Advocate Singapogu Subbarao Clash in High-Stakes ₹10 Crore Fraud Case
A financial dispute involving allegations of a ₹10 crore investment fraud has escalated dramatically into a full-blown legal war between celebrated folk singer Mangli and advocate Singapogu Subbarao. The case, which began as a complaint about monetary losses, has now spiraled into a complex battle involving dual FIRs, claims of death threats, and accusations of manipulated videos, transforming it from a mere financial matter into a fierce contest for reputation and justice.
The Origins of the Dispute: Investment Schemes and Alleged Fraud
The controversy traces its roots to advocate Singapogu Subbarao's initial complaint, where he alleged that his clients were deceived of nearly ₹9.5 to 10 crore through investment schemes connected to "Gokula Nandana Infra India Pvt Ltd." According to Subbarao, approximately 100 to 150 investors, primarily from middle-class backgrounds, were promised high returns of 3-5% monthly through film financing opportunities. In his formal complaint, Subbarao named Mangli, her brother Shiva, and several others, also claiming that he faced intimidation and threats when attempting to recover the funds for his clients. Based on these allegations, the Panjagutta Police Station registered a case, setting the stage for a protracted legal confrontation.
Counter-Complaints and Escalation: A Two-Sided Legal Battle
As tensions mounted, Mangli vehemently denied all accusations and filed a counter-complaint at the Narsingi Police Station. In her filing, the folk singer accused advocate Subbarao of harassment and defamation, alleging that he used a fake video—reportedly showing her with large sums of cash—to demand money and threaten her career. This move effectively turned the dispute into a two-sided legal battle, with both parties leveling serious charges against each other, further complicating the investigation and public perception of the case.
Detailed Accusations and Legal Sections Involved
The Panjagutta police complaint lists five official accused: A1 Ramavath Madhu (identified as the main promoter of the scheme), A2 Bharat Chauhan, A3 Shailaja Chauhan, A4 Shiva (Mangli's brother), and A5 Mangli (Satyavathi Rathod). The allegations under this FIR include:
- BNS Section 318 (Cheating): Claims that Mangli and her brother Shiva exploited her celebrity status to lure middle-class investors into "Gokula Nandana Infra" with promises of 3-5% monthly returns via film financing.
- BNS Section 351(2) (Criminal Intimidation): Subbarao alleges he was threatened with a "staged road accident" when demanding refunds for his clients.
- BNS Section 61 (Criminal Conspiracy): Police are investigating a coordinated effort among the five accused to siphon funds.
In contrast, Mangli's counter-allegations in the Narsingi FIR involve:
- BNS Section 351(3) (Extortion by Threat): Mangli asserts that Subbarao used a manipulated video to extort money and jeopardize her career.
- BNS Section 79 (Insulting Modesty): The singer claims the advocate used abusive language and derogatory gestures intended to humiliate her during interactions.
- BNS Section 356 (Defamation): Mangli's team argues that the entire fraud narrative is a "deliberate misinformation campaign" designed to tarnish her public image.
Scale of the Alleged Fraud and Investor Impact
The core of the fraud claims centers on a systemic investment scheme promising high returns through film industry financing via Gokulanandana Infra India Pvt Ltd. The official fraud amount under investigation by the Panjagutta Police is ₹10 crore, with advocate Subbarao estimating that around 150 or more investors, mostly from middle-class families, have been affected. In media briefings, Subbarao has suggested that the total projected scam size could be as high as ₹150 to 200 crore, indicating the potential magnitude of the financial losses involved.
Director Venu Udugula Distances Himself from the Controversy
Amid the escalating conflict, film director and producer Venu Udugula has publicly distanced himself from the case after advocate Subbarao alleged his presence during a settlement meeting. Clarifying his role as a mutual acquaintance, Venu emphasized that he has no business ties to the alleged fraud. "I'm deeply hurt to see my name linked to the Mangli case. I have no involvement in this issue. I only suggested a peaceful resolution as both parties are known to me," he stated. He added, "Even in the FIR, my name is not listed as an accused... The Panjagutta police also confirmed I am not related to this matter," seeking to clear his name from any association with the contentious legal battle.
This case highlights the intricate web of allegations and counter-allegations in high-profile financial disputes, underscoring the challenges in navigating legal and reputational risks in the entertainment and investment sectors.
