Cult.fit cofounder Rishabh Telang has moved the Karnataka High Court seeking to quash an FIR registered against him following a complaint by his brother-in-law and former business associate Deepak Poduval. The FIR, registered by Bengaluru’s Bellandur Police on August 6, relates to allegations of forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy connected with the transfer of the original Cult Fitness business and its subsequent striking off.
The legal development comes at a sensitive time for Cult.fit, which filed draft papers with SEBI in July for an IPO comprising a ₹950 crore fresh issue and an offer for sale of up to 17.86 crore shares. The Karnataka High Court has issued notices to the state and Poduval but has not stayed the police investigation. The court noted that Telang had received a notice under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and that there was no immediate apprehension of arrest.
Rishabh Telang Moves Karnataka HC To Quash FIR
Telang approached the Karnataka High Court after Bellandur Police registered an FIR based on Poduval’s complaint. Justice M. Nagaprasanna issued notices to the state government and Poduval, directing them to respond to Telang’s petition. The matter remains pending, and the court has not ruled on the merits of the allegations.
The case concerns the early corporate history of the Cult brand, predating the current Cult.fit structure.
According to court reports, Telang and Poduval were founder subscribers of Cult Fitness Private Limited, incorporated in November 2015, with each initially holding a 50% stake. Poduval alleges that Telang subsequently diverted the business, customers, goodwill and revenue to Cultfit Healthcare Private Limited, which was incorporated in August 2016.
Cult.fit Legal Dispute At A Glance
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Petitioner | Rishabh Telang |
| Position | Cult.fit cofounder |
| Complainant | Deepak Poduval |
| Relationship | Brother-in-law and former business associate |
| Police station | Bellandur Police, Bengaluru |
| FIR registered | August 6, 2026 |
| High Court | Karnataka High Court |
| Judge | Justice M. Nagaprasanna |
| Petition | Quashing of FIR |
| Investigation stayed? | No |
| Next hearing | September 2/3, 2026, according to different court reports |
The exact next hearing date has been reported as September 2 by Bar & Bench and September 3 by LiveLaw, so the court listing should be treated as subject to confirmation.
What Are The Allegations Against Telang?
Poduval has alleged that documents used to transfer the original Cult business and eventually strike off Cult Fitness carried forged versions of his signatures.
The complaint concerns corporate filings and documents associated with the winding-up of Cult Fitness, including documents submitted to the Registrar of Companies. Poduval has alleged that these actions were taken without his authorization and that his interest in the company was extinguished.
The allegations relate to events spanning 2016 to 2019, even though the FIR was registered only in August 2026.
Timeline Of The Dispute
| Year/Date | Development |
|---|---|
| November 2015 | Cult Fitness incorporated |
| 2016 | Cultfit Healthcare incorporated and business/assets transferred |
| 2017 | Telang’s counsel says Poduval signed assignment agreements |
| 2019 | Cult Fitness struck off |
| May–June 2026 | Poduval says he discovered disputed filings |
| July 2026 | Cult.fit files DRHP for IPO |
| August 6, 2026 | Bellandur Police registers FIR |
| August 25, 2026 | Karnataka HC hears Telang’s quashing plea |
| September 2026 | Next hearing expected |
The long gap between the underlying transactions and the FIR is a central part of Telang’s defense.
Telang Denies The Allegations
Telang has denied the allegations and has argued before the High Court that Poduval was aware of the transactions involving the original Cult business.
His counsel told the court that Poduval had signed assignment agreements in 2017 and received approximately ₹1 crore as consideration. The defense also argued that the complaint was filed nearly a decade after the transactions despite Poduval allegedly having knowledge of them.
Telang’s position is therefore that the transactions were documented and consented to, rather than being carried out through forged documents without Poduval’s knowledge.
Key Positions Of Both Sides
| Issue | Poduval’s Allegation | Telang’s Position |
|---|---|---|
| Asset/IP transfer | Done without authorization | Poduval was aware |
| Signatures | Allegedly forged | Allegations denied |
| 2017 assignment agreements | Disputed in context of complaint | Signed by Poduval |
| Consideration | Claims no payment for lost stake | Around ₹1 Cr received |
| Cult Fitness closure | Allegedly unauthorized | Part of known transaction history |
| Timing of complaint | Discovered in 2026 | Filed nearly a decade later |
These are competing claims that remain to be adjudicated. The High Court has not made any finding that establishes either side’s allegations as fact.
Karnataka HC Does Not Stay Investigation
One of the most important developments from the hearing is that the High Court did not stay the investigation.
The court noted that police had already issued Telang a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS. It also observed that there was no immediate apprehension of arrest.
This means Telang’s petition to quash the FIR remains pending while the police investigation can continue.
Current Legal Status
FIR Registered
↓
Telang Approaches Karnataka HC
↓
HC Issues Notice To State + Complainant
↓
Investigation Not Stayed
↓
No Immediate Arrest Apprehension
↓
Quashing Petition Remains Pending
↓
Next Hearing In September 2026The distinction is important because filing a quashing petition does not itself invalidate an FIR or stop an investigation.
Cult.fit And Cultfit Healthcare Are Not Accused
Cult.fit has sought to distinguish the current operating business from the entity named in the dispute.
The FIR concerns Cult Fitness Private Limited, which was struck off in 2019. Cult.fit and Cultfit Healthcare are not named as accused in the FIR, according to the latest reports.
The company has also said that the entity involved in the complaint was separate from the current Cult.fit structure. Earlier, Cult.fit said it learned of the FIR through media queries and that neither Cult.fit nor its subsidiaries had been named as accused.
This distinction could become particularly important as the company moves through the IPO process.
Legal Dispute Emerges Ahead Of Cult.fit IPO
The timing of the dispute is significant because Cult.fit filed its DRHP with SEBI in July 2026.
The proposed IPO consists of a fresh issue of up to ₹950 crore and an OFS of up to 17.86 crore shares. Media reports have estimated the overall issue size at approximately ₹3,500–4,000 crore once the OFS is included, although the final offer size will depend on the price band and final terms.
Cult.fit IPO Snapshot
| IPO Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Fresh issue | Up to ₹950 Cr |
| OFS | Up to 17.86 Cr shares |
| Potential pre-IPO placement | Up to ₹190 Cr |
| Reported potential overall size | ₹3,500–4,000 Cr |
| Exchanges proposed | BSE and NSE |
| DRHP filed | July 2026 |
| Fitness centers | 708 |
| Paid members | 9.87 lakh+ as of March 31, 2026 |
The company plans to use fresh-issue proceeds for areas including new fitness centers, lease-related obligations, debt repayment, marketing and expansion of Cultsport.
Cult.fit Has 708 Fitness Centers
The legal dispute comes as Cult.fit attempts to position itself for the public markets after a major expansion of its physical fitness network.
According to its IPO filing, Cult.fit operated 708 fitness centers across India and had more than 987,000 paid members as of March 31, 2026.
The company’s business combines physical fitness centers with digital subscriptions, sportswear and fitness equipment, giving it multiple revenue channels.
Cult.fit Business Scale
| Metric | FY26 / March 2026 |
|---|---|
| Fitness centers | 708 |
| Paid members | 987,000+ |
| Cities | 77 |
| FY26 operating revenue | ~₹1,720.6 Cr |
| FY26 net loss | ~₹251 Cr |
| FY26 adjusted EBITDA | ~₹144.8 Cr |
The figures show the scale Cult.fit has achieved, but also underline why corporate-governance and legal disclosures can attract additional attention during an IPO process.
Why The Case Matters For IPO Investors
Founder disputes are closely watched during public offerings because investors assess not only financial performance but also the company’s corporate history, governance and potential litigation exposure.
In this case, the allegations concern an older entity and transactions that took place before the current Cult.fit business reached its present scale.
The fact that the current Cult.fit and Cultfit Healthcare entities are not named as accused provides an important distinction. However, the dispute involves a cofounder and historical business assets associated with the Cult brand, which could still attract scrutiny from investors and regulators.
What IPO Investors May Monitor
| Factor | Why It Matters |
|---|---|
| FIR outcome | Could affect legal disclosures |
| Founder dispute | Corporate-governance consideration |
| Cult Fitness ownership history | Clarifies legacy asset transfers |
| IPO disclosures | Determines how litigation is presented |
| Court proceedings | May affect risk assessment |
| Financial performance | Determines valuation support |
| IPO timeline | Tests investor confidence |
The legal proceedings are still at an early stage, making it premature to conclude how they will affect the IPO.
The Bigger Picture
Rishabh Telang’s move to the Karnataka High Court puts a long-running dispute over Cult Fitness’ early corporate structure under judicial scrutiny just as Cult.fit prepares for a major public-market transition. The FIR concerns allegations that documents used in the transfer of the original Cult business and the subsequent striking off of Cult Fitness contained forged signatures. Telang denies the allegations and says Poduval was aware of the transactions and received consideration under assignment agreements.
The immediate legal development is limited but important: the Karnataka High Court has issued notices to the state and Poduval, while declining to stay the investigation. The case does not name Cult.fit or Cultfit Healthcare as accused, according to current reports. With Cult.fit’s proposed ₹950 crore fresh issue and potential overall IPO size of ₹3,500–4,000 crore, investors are likely to watch how the company and its founders address the legacy dispute as the listing process progresses.
Looking Ahead
The next major development will come when the Karnataka High Court considers Telang’s quashing petition after receiving responses from the state and Poduval. Until then, the FIR remains in place and the investigation can continue. The court’s eventual decision could determine whether the criminal proceedings proceed further or whether the FIR is quashed at the threshold.
For Cult.fit, the timing means the dispute will likely remain under scrutiny while the company advances its IPO process. The company has built a sizeable fitness network and filed plans for a ₹950 crore fresh issue, but public-market investors will also examine legal, governance and historical-transaction disclosures. The outcome of the founder dispute, along with the company’s ability to maintain operational growth and improve profitability, will therefore be important factors as Cult.fit moves closer to a potential listing
Get the day’s top stories in your inbox
One concise email. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
