Why Mumbai court rejected Tanushree Dutta’s MeToo complaint against Nana Patekar

A Mumbai court on Friday refused to take cognizance of actor Tanushree Dutta's sexual harassment complaint against veteran actor Nana Patekar and others involved in the 2008 film 'Horn Ok Pleasss' [The State of Maharashtra v Nana Patekar and Ors].Judicial Magistrate First Class NV Bansal of the Railway Court at Andheri said that the complaint was time barred as it exceeded the deadline set by the limitation law."Offence in relation to alleged first incident occurred on 23/03/2008 is not within limitation and there is bar to take the cognizance of the same by the Court. There is no reason before me to take cognizance after long lapse of more than 7 years after expiry of period of limitation. Moreover, there is no reason before me to exercise extraordinary discretionary powers to condone the delay in the interest of Justice, where opportunity to hear the proposed accused is not given,” the Court said.Dutta's complaint had sparked a nationwide MeToo movement in 2018.The ruling came after the Mumbai police filed a 'B-summary' report (closure report) in 2019, stating there was no sufficient evidence against Patekar and the other accused - choreographer Ganesh Acharya, producer Samee Siddiqui and director Rakesh Sarang..Dutta had filed the complaint in October 2018, accusing Patekar of harassment during the filming of a song for Horn Ok Pleasss in 2008. She alleged that Patekar inappropriately touched her even after she had clearly mentioned she would not perform lewd or uncomfortable steps. Along with Patekar, Dutta also named Acharya, Siddiqui and Sarang in the complaint. The police, after investigating the case, filed a 'B-summary' report, stating that no crime was established. In response, Dutta filed a protest petition in December 2019, requesting further investigation and action against the accused.In his order, Magistrate Bansal pointed to the statute of limitations under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which restricts the time frame for prosecuting certain offenses. .The judge noted that the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with outraging a woman's modesty, is punishable with a maximum of 2 years before the 2013 amendment. As per Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this meant the limitation period for filing a complaint was only three years. Since the alleged incident occurred in March 2008, and the complaint was filed in October 2018, the court found that the case was time-barred.Likewise, the offence under Section 509 IPC, which deals with insulting the modesty of a woman is punishable with imprisonment of up to 1 year before the 2013 amendment. Under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this meant the limitation period for filing a complaint was only one year. As the complaint was filed more than a decade after the alleged incident, this offence too could not proceed due to the time bar..The court did not address the facts of the case and clarified, “The alleged first incident cannot be said to be false, nor can it be said to be true.” The judge explained that the 'B-summary' report filed by the police could not be dealt with due to the legal bar on taking cognizance of the case, and the final report was disposed of as filed.Magistrate Bansal also reiterated the purpose of the limitation period, stating, “The purpose of the parliament in prescribing period of limitation is to put pressure on the organs of criminal prosecution to make every effort to ensure detection and punishment of the crime quickly. The object of the Code in putting a bar of limitation on the prosecution was clearly to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time, as a result of which material evidence may disappear and also to prevent abuse of the process of the Court by filing vexations and belated prosecutions long after the date of the offence.”As a result, the court concluded that the offence related to the alleged first incident on March 23, 2008 could not proceed due to the expiry of the limitation period..[Read Order]