Nana Patekar : In an exciting point in time, a Mumbai court has declined to hear actress Tanushree Dutta’s MeToo charges against legendary actor Nana Patekar, stating that the complaint was lodged after the statute of limitations had expired.
Dutta had accused Nana Patekar in 2018
The allegations, which surfaced in 2018, were tied to an event Dutta said occurred while filming a song for the film Horn Ok Pleasss in 2008. Dutta accused Patekar and three others of harassment and misbehaviour during the filming in a complaint filed in October 2018. The charges received national prominence, leading to India’s vast #MeToo movement, in which women from all sectors spoke up about their sexual harassment experiences.
Table of Contents
judicial magistrate First Class (Andheri), NV Bansal stated
However, in his decision on Friday, judicial magistrate First Class (Andheri), NV Bansal stated that the complaint was filed more than ten years after the act in issue occurred, which exceeds the limitation period under Indian law. Sections 354 (assault or criminal force with purpose to outrage modesty) and 509 (insulting a woman’s modesty) of the Indian Penal Code each have a three-year statute of limitations.
The court underlined the importance of the limitation period in ensuring timely criminal investigations and prosecutions. It also noted that no application had been filed to explain the delay in putting forward the complaint. The magistrate expressed worry that allowing such a significant delay without justification would undermine equitable principles and the real spirit of the law.
As part of the inquiry, the police filed a ‘B-summary’ report in 2019, claiming that there was no evidence to back up Dutta’s assertions. The police also determined that the FIR was “false.” In response, Dutta filed a protest petition, urging the court to reject the B-summary and conduct a more thorough inquiry into the charges.
However, the court determined that the matter fell beyond the statute of limitations and thus could not be pursued further. The magistrate found that the alleged incidence could not be determined decisively as true or false since the matter could not be reviewed due to the legal prohibition on taking cognisance.
you join our tazatimesnews Telegram Channel
you join our whatsapp channel
Next News Read – Special for International Women’s Day: Unlock the Greatest Government Schemes for Women’s Empowerment!
