MeToo allegations against Nana Patekar: Court says no explanation given on delay in filing FIR, disposes case
The actress had alleged that she was sexually harassed by Patekar in 2008 during a movie shoot.
3 min read
The actress had alleged that she was sexually harassed by Nana Patekar in 2008 during a movie shoot. (Express Archive Photo by Pavan Khengre)Questioning the delay of over ten years in filing a complaint, a magistrate court on Friday disposed of the complaint filed against actor Nana Patekar by an actress during the #MeToo movement in 2018.
The actress had alleged that she was sexually harassed by Patekar in 2008 during a movie shoot. Based on her complaint, an FIR was filed at Oshiwara police station in 2018 against Patekar, choreographer Ganesh Acharya and two others.
The court said that the FIR was filed under sections 354 (sexual harassment) and 509 (outraging modesty) of the Indian Penal Code in 2018 for an incident dating back to 2008. Both the sections have a limitation of three years as per the Criminal Procedure Code but no explanation or reasons were given for the delay in filing the FIR, so many years after the alleged incident, the court said.
Period of limitation means that if any offence has taken place which can be charged under these sections, a complaint must be received within three years.
This is to ensure swift detection and punishment, and to prevent abuse of the process of court by belated prosecution after a long lapse of time. If there is a delay, the lawyers can also file a condonation of delay application, explaining the delay, following which the court may decide if it can hear the case.
The court said that the actress through her lawyer had not filed any application to condone and explain the delay either. “As such application for condonation of delay is absent, there is no reason before me to take cognizance after a long lapse of more than seven years after expiry of period of limitation,” said N V Bansal, judicial magistrate, Andheri court. The court said that since no application was filed for condonation of delay, opportunity also could not be given to the accused to give their response.
Under such circumstances, the court said that it cannot get into the merits and facts of the case. The police had filed a B-summary report after completing its probe, which indicated that their investigation found that the complaint was ‘maliciously false’. The court, however, said that since it cannot take cognizance of the offence, due to the delay, it cannot deal with the B-summary report either. The case was thus disposed of.
A connected case filed against one of the accused, Abdul Sami, for his comments allegedly against the actress in 2018, was also disposed of for lack of sufficient grounds to proceed. “This is a relief for Mr Nana Patekar and it seems that the trial court has categorically observed in its order the allegations were time-barred and cognizance could not be taken,” said lawyer Aniket Nikam, representing Patekar.
You May Like
Photos
