The sexual harassment case former actress Tanushree Dutta filed against actor Nana Patekar during the MeToo movement is still open, her lawyer Nitin Satpute said on Saturday.
“It (the news about the case being dismissed) is not true. Some media have reported wrong news without verifying facts,” Satpute told The Telegraph Online.
Satpute’s statement comes hours after Dutta accused Patekar’s “PR team” of misleading the media by sharing false information regarding the court’s verdict.
Following news reports of Bombay High Court dismissing the 2018 sexual exploitation case filed against Patekar, Tanushree took to social media to claim that the verdict was instead in her favour.
“The court has cancelled the B-summary report filed by the Mumbai Police on the Horn Ok Pleassss sexual harassment complaint against Nana Patekar and others,” said 40-year-old Dutta.
In legal terms, a report where an FIR is found to be false is called a B-summary.
Tanushree explained that a key witness had come forward with a testimony corroborating her allegations and revealing that she had been pressured to stay silent due to threats.
The court accepted this testimony and determined that the B-summary report, filed by the police in 2019, could not be accepted, as the police had failed to conduct a thorough investigation, Dutta said, declaring this as a win for herself. “The police will now have to file a chargesheet on the matter.”
In 2018, Dutta had accused Nana Patekar and other associates of sexual harassment on the set of the 2008 film Horn Ok Pleassss.
Dutta filed criminal cases accusing Patekar, choreographer Ganesh Acharya, director Rakesh Sarang, and others of “outraging and insulting her modesty” during the filming of the movie.
Tanushree registered the first FIR against Patekar on October 5, 2018, and a second one a few days later, citing incidents in March 2008 and October 2010.
The police, after conducting their investigation, concluded that there was no evidence to support the allegations and filed a “B-summary” report, recommending that the case be closed.
This report, according to Tanushree, was filed without questioning her witnesses, many of whom had allegedly been threatened by Patekar’s associates.
Tanushree’s legal team challenged the B-summary report, leading to the recent decision, she said.
However, Tanushree expressed frustration over what she claimed was misleading media coverage of the court's ruling. She accused Nana Patekar of spreading “fake news” about the judgment and warned media houses publishing incorrect stories that they would be held accountable in court. She clarified that the case against Patekar is still open, and the police are now required to file a chargesheet.
In her posts, she also asked the media to verify court documents before reporting on them, stating, “Court language is complicated and he (Patekar) has taken advantage of it. Please verify facts before printing.”
On Friday, the Metropolitan Magistrate NV Bansal reportedly dismissed the two criminal cases in question. The court ruled that the police had filed their closure reports beyond the legally prescribed period, rendering the cases inadmissible.
