Tanushree Dutta's Sexual Harassment Case Against Nana Patekar Dismissed by Court

A Mumbai court on Friday dismissed Tanushree Dutta's 'MeToo' allegations against veteran actor Nana Patekar, citing the complaint was filed "beyond the period of limitation" without sufficient explanation for the delay.

Dutta's complaint, filed in October 2018, accused Patekar and three others of harassment and misconduct during the 2008 filming of "Horn Ok Pleasss." The case sparked national attention and fueled the #MeToo movement on social media.

However, in 2019, the police submitted a final report to a magistrate court, concluding their investigation found no incriminating evidence against any of the accused. The FIR was deemed false, and the police report was categorized as a 'B-summary'.

Tanushree Dutta's protest petition against the police's 'B-summary' was dismissed by the court, which ruled that the complaint was filed beyond the three-year limitation period for the alleged offenses under Indian Penal Code sections 354 and 509. The incident, which occurred on March 23, 2008, was reported by Dutta in 2018, exceeding the time limit stipulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The court emphasized that the limitation period exists to incentivize prompt action in criminal investigations and ensure swift justice. As neither the prosecution nor the informant provided an application for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for the prolonged delay in filing the complaint, the magistrate concluded there was no justification to proceed with the case after a lapse of over seven years beyond the limitation period.

If such a huge delay is condoned without any sufficient cause then it will be against the principle of equity and true spirit of law," the magistrate said while concluding that alleged incident "is not within limitation and court is barred to take the cognizance of the same

- Magistrate

"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 cognizance".