Tanushree Dutta accused Nana Patekar of misbehaving with her during the shooting of a song for the film Horn Ok Pleasss in 2008. She alleged that despite her clear refusal to perform certain steps, Patekar inappropriately touched her.
Mumbai: A Mumbai court has refused to take action on actress Tanushree Dutta’s complaint against veteran actor Nana Patekar and others regarding an alleged sexual harassment incident from 2008. The court ruled that the case was time-barred, meaning it was filed too late according to the legal deadline.
On Friday, Judicial Magistrate First Class NV Bansal from the Railway Court in Andheri dismissed the case, stating:
“Offence in relation to alleged first incident occurred on 23/03/2008 is not within limitation and there is bar to take the cognizance of the same by the Court. There is no reason before me to take cognizance after long lapse of more than 7 years after expiry of period of limitation. Moreover, there is no reason before me to exercise extraordinary discretionary powers to condone the delay in the interest of Justice, where opportunity to hear the proposed accused is not given.”
Dutta’s allegations against Patekar first surfaced in 2018, which led to a major wave in India’s #MeToo movement.
Background
Tanushree Dutta had accused Nana Patekar of misbehaving with her during the shooting of a song for the film Horn Ok Pleasss in 2008. She alleged that despite her clear refusal to perform certain steps, Patekar inappropriately touched her. She filed a police complaint in October 2018 against Patekar, choreographer Ganesh Acharya, producer Samee Siddiqui, and director Rakesh Sarang.
In 2019, the Mumbai Police filed a ‘B-summary’ report, which is a closure report indicating that there wasn’t enough evidence to proceed against the accused. Dutta opposed this and filed a protest petition in December 2019, requesting further investigation and action.
The judge explained that under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), certain crimes have a specific time limit for prosecution. The alleged offense falls under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (outraging a woman’s modesty), which carried a maximum punishment of two years before the 2013 amendment.
According to Section 468(2)(c) CrPC, this means the complaint should have been filed within three years. Since the alleged incident happened in March 2008, but Dutta filed her complaint in October 2018, it was legally too late.
Similarly, Section 509 IPC (insulting a woman’s modesty) carried a maximum punishment of one year before the 2013 amendment, meaning the complaint should have been filed within one year. Since the complaint came more than a decade after the incident, it was also invalid due to the time limit.
The judge clarified that he was not making any statement about whether the allegations were true or false, stating:
“The alleged first incident cannot be said to be false, nor can it be said to be true.”
Since the law did not allow the court to take cognizance of the case, the ‘B-summary’ report was accepted and the final report was closed.
The magistrate also explained why such time limits exist, stating:
“The purpose of the parliament in 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 object of the Code in putting a bar of limitation on the prosecution was clearly to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time, as a result of which material evidence may disappear and also to prevent abuse of the process of the Court by filing vexations and belated prosecutions long after the date of the offence.”
Case Title: The State of Maharashtra v Nana Patekar and Ors
Read Order
