Mumbai court refused to take cognizance of 2018 MeToo complaint leveled by actress Tanushree Dutta against Nana Patekar, who is a seasoned actor, mentioning that the grievance was "beyond the period of limitation" without bringing on record why there was inordinate delay.
On Friday, Judicial Magistrate First Class (Andheri) NV Bansal wrote that Dutta had filed an FIR in 2018 relating to an episode which occurred as per her allegation on March 23, 2008.
Dutta had alleged harassment and misconduct by Patekar and three others while filming a song for Horn Ok Pleasss in 2008. Her accusations brought national focus, initiating the #MeToo movement in India.
In 2019, the police filed a closure report in the magistrate court, saying that there was no incriminating evidence against the accused in their inquiry. The FIR was found to be false and resulted in filing a 'B-summary' report, a judicial term used where a case is devoid of evidence to pursue it.
Subsequent to this, Dutta approached the court with a protest petition, requesting that the court decline the B-summary and seek an additional investigation into her complaint.
The magistrate mentioned, though, that the offences under the IPC sections 354 and 509 under which the FIR was filed have a three-year limitation period according to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The court found that limitation periods are put in place for the purpose of ensuring crimes are investigated and prosecuted within a reasonable time. It added that neither the complainant nor the prosecution had made an application to warrant the delay.
"With no reason given for taking cognizance after over seven years after the limitation period, the court is precluded from hearing the case," the magistrate said.
The court highlighted that condoning such a large lapse without just cause would be against the norms of justice and legal fairness. It made it clear that it had not gone into the facts of the purported incident but was only deciding on the procedural bar.
Finally disposing of the matter, the magistrate rejected the B-summary report, declaring that owing to the legal bar against taking cognizance, it could not be entertained further.
Read also| Siddhant Chaturvedi & Ananya Panday's Leaked Photo Sparks Buzz About a New Project
