Mumbai: On Friday, a Mumbai court refused to take cognizance of the “Metu” allegations against experienced actor Nana Patekar by its co-star Tanushree Dutta in 2018, which was filed without explaining the delay of “delay beyond the border period” after the complaint.
In his complaint filed in October that year, Dutta shot Patekar and three others for harassment and misbehaving in 2008 while shooting a song on the set of the film “Horn OK Place” in 2008.
The issue made national headlines and gave rise to the #MeToo movement on social media.
In 2019, the police filed their final report before a magistrate court, stating that his investigation was not found against any accused.
The FIR was found to be false, the police further said in its report. Such a report in legal terms is called ‘B-Sumari’.
At that time, Dutta filed a protest petition, urging the court to reject B-Sumiri. He urged the court to order an inquiry into his complaint.
Judicial Magistrate First Class (Andheri) NV Bansal said that Dutta filed an incident on an incident under the Indian Penal Code Sections 354 and 509 in 2018, allegedly took place on 23 March 2008.
The magistrate said that both crimes have a three -year limit, which is according to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC).
The court said that the purpose of the border period is to put pressure on the organs of criminal prosecution to make every effort to detect the crime and ensure punishment.
The order states that no application has been filed for the delay by the prosecution or informer, so that the court explained the cause of the delay.
Thus, “I have no reason after a long lapse of more than 7 years after the end of the border period”, the magistrate said.
The magistrate said, “If such a large delay is done without any sufficient reason, it would be against the principle of equity and the true sense of law,” the magistrate said that the alleged incident is “not within the border and the court is not prohibited to take the same cognizance”.
“The alleged first incident cannot be called wrong, nor can it be told the truth” because the court has not dealt with the facts of the alleged incident.
The magistrate disposed of the B summary report, saying that it cannot be dealt with “due to blessings”.
