Lawyer for Nana Patekar and Ganesh Acharya Issues Statement on Tanushree Dutta Case
Click to start listening
Synopsis
Padma Shkatkar, the lawyer representing Nana Patekar and Ganesh Acharya, has addressed the sexual harassment allegations made by Tanushree Dutta, stating that the court did not recognize the case due to delays in filing.
Key Takeaways
- The court dismissed the case due to the Limitation Act.
- The FIR was filed after a significant delay.
- Tanushree Dutta's claims were deemed false from the start.
- The investigation found no substantial evidence against Patekar and Acharya.
- The ruling is seen as a victory for men targeted by false accusations.
Mumbai, March 10 (NationPress) The attorney for Nana Patekar and Ganesh Acharya, Padma Shkatkar, has issued an official statement regarding the sexual harassment allegations brought forth by former actress Tanushree Dutta. She emphasized that the court did not acknowledge the case as it was restricted by the Limitation Act due to the delay in filing the FIR.
The statement, titled: “Finally, justice served to Actor Nana Patekar, Choreographer Ganesh Acharya, Sami Siddhiqui (producer), and Rakesh Sarang (director),” asserted that Tanushree was targeting the clients of the lawyer.
It stated: “The FIR No. 448/2018 lodged at the Oshiwara police station on 10.10.2018 by the complainant, actress Tanushree Dutta, primarily references an incident dated 23.3.2008, which has been untrue since the beginning, aimed at my clients. She later escalated the issue following the sting operation conducted by Sami Siddiqui on 5.10.2018, and the court has justifiably concluded his innocence.”
According to the statement, the police conducted a meticulous investigation.
“The officer from the Oshiwara police station thoroughly investigated the matter and submitted a 'B summary report' to the Hon'ble Andheri Magistrate court. The court did not take cognizance of the case as it was barred by the Limitation Act due to the delay in lodging the FIR.”
The lawyer pointed out that “the complainant did not submit an application for condonation of delay and failed to establish the maintainability of her case, leading to its dismissal by the court.”
“At first glance, there was insufficient evidence to support her claims, despite over 100 individuals being present on set during filming. My clients are perplexed by the reasons behind these false allegations.”
“They have a massive fan base due to their diligence and commitment, and the current accusations seem aimed merely at tarnishing their reputations with ulterior motives.”
“Unfortunately, some women exploit and misuse the law, targeting prominent and respected figures in the industry, which is both wrong and unethical, resulting in a downturn for the careers of seasoned professionals.”
The attorney's statement also noted that her “clients have endured a great deal over the past seven years, experiencing significant trauma, stress, and suffering, which I have witnessed firsthand.”
“Today, the Hon'ble Magistrate Court, Andheri, has rendered a verdict dismissing the complainant's case. This ruling serves as a beacon of hope for all men facing unfounded accusations from the 'Me Too' litigants. We had faith in the legal system and the judiciary, and we are pleased with today’s outcome.”
