The Bombay High Court on Wednesday issued notice to a model on a plea by actor Rakhi Sawant seeking quashing of the complaint filed against her by the model alleging defamation and outraging of modesty.
A division bench of Justices PD Naik and NR Borkar also granted exemption to Sawant from appearing before the lower court which issued summons to her following the complaint by the model.
An FIR was filed on October 31, 2022, against Sawant alleging that she showed some videos of the complainant and made defamatory statements. It was further alleged that the video, shown to the media, was sexually explicit. The offence was registered under Sections 354(A) (outraging modesty of a woman), 500 (defamation), 504 (criminal intimidation), 509 (intent of provoking breach) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). She was also booked under Section 67(A) of the Information and Technology Act (IT Act) which deals with publishing or transmitting in electronic form any material which contains sexually explicit act.
Sawant’s advocate, Ali Kaashif Khan Deshmukh, argued that she cannot be booked under section 354A of the IPC since it is not applicable against women. It is only applicable to men alone. Section 67A of the IT Act is not applicable since the complainant model herself has recorded the explicit videos and published on the internet, argued Deshmukh.
Besides, the model complainant herself is an accused in a case registered under section 67A of the IT Act for publishing obscene material. She was granted pre-arrest bail by the Supreme Court in the case related to businessman and actor Shilpa Shetty’s husband Raj Kundra. The HC has kept the matter for hearing on January 10, 2024.
Her plea contends that the fellow model filed the case against her out of revenge. Seeking quashing of the FIR, Sawant has claimed that a careful perusal of the FIR would indicate that no confidence can be generated in respect to the genuineness of the FIR. It further contended that the Sawant and the complainant had amicably resolved all disputes. However, keeping the FIR pending was the complainant’s tactic to waste the court’s time.
