Mumbai: A Mumbai court has refused to take cognisance of "MeToo" allegations levelled against veteran actor Nana Patekar by his co-star Tanushree Dutta in 2018 after observing the complaint was filed "beyond the period of limitation" without explaining the reason for delay.
Judicial Magistrate First Class (Andheri) NV Bansal on Friday said that Dutta filed an FIR in 2018 over an incident that allegedly occurred on March 23, 2008.
About The Case
In her complaint filed in October 2018, Dutta accused Patekar and three others of harassing and misbehaving with her in 2008 while shooting a song on the sets of the film "Horn Ok Pleasss".
The issue hit national headlines and sparked the #MeToo movement on social media.
The police, in 2019, 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 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.
"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".
(Except for the headline, this article has not been edited by FPJ's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)
