Tanushree Dutta had filed her complaint in October 2018, in which she accused Patekar of harassment during the shooting of a song for the film 'Horn OK Please' in 2008. Her allegations gave rise to the MeToo movement in India
In a big relief, a Mumbai court on Friday refused to take cognisance of MeToo' allegations levelled against veteran actor Nana Patekar by his co-star and actress Tanushree Dutta in 2018, after observing the complaint was filed 'beyond the period of limitation' without explaining the reason for the delay.
Judicial Magistrate First Class (Andheri) NV Bansal on Friday said Dutta had lodged an FIR in 2018 regarding an incident that allegedly took place on March 23, 2008, Bar and Bench reported.
What Is The Case ?
Tanushree Dutta had filed her complaint in October 2018, in which she accused Patekar of harassment during the shooting of a song for the film 'Horn OK Please' in 2008. Her allegations gave rise to the MeToo movement in India.
The issue hit national headlines and sparked the #MeToo movement on social media.
In 2019, police had filed its final report before a magistrate court stating that its probe did not find anything incriminating against any of the accused.
The FIR was found to be false, the police further said in its report. In legal terms, such a report is called a 'B-summary'.
At the time, Dutta had filed a protest petition urging the court to reject the B-summary. She urged the court to order a further probe into her complaint.
The magistrate said Dutta filed an FIR in 2018 under the Indian Penal Code sections 354 and 509 over an incident that allegedly occurred on March 23, 2008.
Both offences have a limitation of three years as per provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), he said.
The purpose of the prescribing period of limitation is to put pressure on the organs of criminal prosecution to make every effort to ensure detection and punishment of the crime quickly, the court observed.
No application for condonation of delay has been filed by the prosecution and the informant to let the court know the reasons for the delay, the order said.
Thus, there is "no reason before me to take cognisance after a long lapse of more than 7 years after the expiry of the period of limitation," the magistrate said, as per the reports.
"If such a huge delay is condoned without any sufficient cause, then it will be against the principle of equity and true spirit of the law," the magistrate said while concluding that the alleged incident "is not within limitation and the court is barred to take cognisance of the same".
"The alleged first incidence cannot be said to be false nor can be said as true" as the court has not dealt with the facts of the alleged incident, it added.
The magistrate disposed of the B Summary report, saying it "cannot be dealt with due to bar of taking cognisance".
(With Agency Inputs)