On Friday, a court in Mumbai chose not to recognize Tanushree Dutta’s allegations of sexual harassment against Nana Patekar and others associated with the 2008 film Horn Ok Pleasss. This ruling represented a significant legal obstacle for Dutta, who had contested the favorable decision given to Patekar in the #MeToo case she had initiated. The lower court rejected her petition of protest, which disputed the police’s closure report submitted in Mumbai.
According to a report from Bar and Bench, NV Bansal, a Judicial Magistrate First Class sitting at the Railway Court in Andheri, determined that the case had exceeded the lawful time limit for prosecution, rendering it unfit for legal review or judgment.
The court stated that since the incident reported on March 23, 2008 falls outside the limitation period, it cannot consider this case. Additionally, due to a lapse of over 7 years after the expiration of the limitation period, there’s no compelling reason for the court to exercise its discretionary powers to overlook the delay in filing. Furthermore, since the accused has not been given an opportunity to be heard, it is not appropriate to use extraordinary powers in the name of justice at this time.
In 2008, during the production of the film “Horn Ok Pleasss,” Tanushree Dutta, a well-known figure in India’s #MeToo movement, claimed that Nana Patekar behaved inappropriately towards her. She initially spoke about this incident publicly and later provided formal evidence by filing a police report (FIR) at the Oshiwara Police Station in October 2018.
2008’s incident and the later harassment she experienced in 2018 were both mentioned in her complaint. The accusations made by Dutta significantly contributed to sparking the nationwide #MeToo movement in India during 2018.
After conducting an investigation, Mumbai police submitted a ‘B-summary’ report (closing report) in 2019, stating that there was not enough evidence to bring charges against Patekar, as well as choreographer Ganesh Acharya, producer Samee Siddiqui, and director Rakesh Sarang – all of whom were implicated in the complaint.
She particularly implicated Nana for overstepping boundaries, even though she made it clear that she did not wish to participate in any questionable dance moves. Following the police’s closing report, she submitted a petition of protest in December 2019, requesting a more detailed probe.
In his decision, Magistrate Bansal referred to Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which sets a time limit for bringing certain charges. He pointed out that under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), dealing with acts that violate a woman’s decency or privacy, the maximum penalty prior to the 2013 amendment was two years’ imprisonment.
As stated in Section 468(2)(c) of the Code, complaints like this must be filed within a span of three years from the incident. Unfortunately for Dutta, she submitted her complaint more than ten years later, making the case ineligible due to being beyond the statute of limitations.
Previously, an offense under Section 509 IPC (Indian Penal Code), which pertains to acts that insult a woman’s modesty, carried a maximum sentence of one year in prison. Additionally, under Section 468, the time limit for filing this particular charge was just one year. Since the complaint about the alleged incident emerged over ten years later, the case could not move forward due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
The court chose not to rule on whether the events of the case were factually correct, instead noting that it was impossible to categorize the initial incident as either true or false due to legal restrictions. As a result, since the court couldn’t intervene, the police report summarizing the investigation (B-summary) stood unchallenged, leading to the case being formally closed.
Judge Banal underscored the significance of time-limit laws, noting that the purpose behind establishing such deadlines is to facilitate prompt identification and punishment of criminal acts.
The purpose behind the Code is to avoid delays that could lead to lost evidence and to discourage misuse of legal provisions by starting late or unnecessary lawsuits. As a result, it was decided in court that due to legal limitations, the case regarding the suspected incident on March 23, 2008, could not proceed any further.
Read More
- Nadaaniyan song Galatfehmi OUT: Ibrahim Ali Khan, Khushi Kapoor’s heartbreaking separation in love will leave you emotional
- Pop-Tarts and Krispy Kreme Kick Off 2025 With Collaborative Menu
- Cookie Run Kingdom Town Square Vault password
- Alec Baldwin’s TLC Reality Show Got A Release Date And There’s At Least One Reason I’ll Definitely Be Checking This One Out
- The First Trailer for The Weeknd’s ‘Hurry Up Tomorrow’ Film Is Here
- Rick Owens Gives RIMOWA’s Cabin Roller a Bronze Patina
- JJJJound’s Made in Germany adidas Superstars Drop This Week
- Lars Eidinger on Berlin Opener ‘The Light’: “We, the Privileged Wealthy, Are the Problem”
- Ryan Gosling’s Star Wars Movie Here’s Everything We Know
- ‘The Last of Us’ Gets Season 2 Premiere Date
2025-03-08 09:37