The metoo Case Against Actor nana patekar Is Nevertheless Open, Says Tanushree Dutta's Attorney.
The sexual harassment case former actress tanushree dutta filed in opposition to actor nana patekar in the course of the metoo movement remains open, her attorney Nitin Satpute stated on Saturday.
"It (the information about the case being brushed off) isn't actual. A few media have mentioned wrong news without verifying facts," Satpute informed.
Satpute's announcement comes hours after Dutta accused Patekar's "PR group" of misleading the media by means of sharing false information regarding the court docket's verdict.
Following information reviews of the bombay High court, disregarding the 2018 sexual exploitation case filed against Patekar, Tanushree took to social media to claim that the decision had become rather in her favor.
"The court has cancelled the B-precis record filed by way of the mumbai police on the Horn adequate Pleassss sexual harassment criticism in opposition to nana patekar and others," said 40-year-old Dutta.
In criminal phrases, a report where an FIR is found to be false is called a B-summary.
Tanushree stated that a key witness had come forward with a sworn statement corroborating her allegations and revealing that she had been pressured to stay silent because of threats.
The court docket universal this testimony and decided that the B-summary document, filed by means of the police in 2019, couldn't be accepted, as the police didn't conduct a radical investigation, Dutta stated, putting forward this as a win for herself. "The police will now have to document a chargesheet on the problem."
In 2018, Dutta had accused nana patekar and other friends of sexual harassment at the set of the 2008 movie Horn Ok Pleassss.
Dutta filed criminal instances accusing Patekar, choreographer Ganesh Acharya, director Rakesh Sarang, and others of "outraging and insulting her modesty" all through the filming of the movie.
Tanushree registered the first FIR against Patekar on october 5, 2018, and a second one some days later, mentioning incidents in march 2008 and october 2010.
The police, after accomplishing their investigation, concluded that there has been no proof to support the allegations and filed a "B-summary" record, recommending that the case be closed.
This report, consistent with Tanushree, was filed without questioning her witnesses, many of whom had allegedly been threatened by using Patekar's associates.
Tanushree's felony team challenged the B-summary record, leading to the current decision, she said.
However, Tanushree expressed frustration over what she claimed was deceptive media coverage of the court docket's ruling. She accused nana patekar of spreading "faux information" about the judgment and warned media homes publishing incorrect tales that they might be held responsible in court. She clarified that the case in opposition to Patekar continues to be open, and the police at the moment are required to document a chargesheet.
In her posts, she also requested the media to verify court files before reporting on them, stating, "Court language is complex, and he (Patekar) has taken advantage of it. Please verify information before printing."
On Friday, the metropolitan magistrate NV Bansal reportedly disregarded the 2 criminal cases in question. The court determined that the police had filed their closure reports past the legally prescribed length, rendering the instances inadmissible.
click and follow Indiaherald WhatsApp channel