Mumbai/New Delhi, Dec 16 (NationPress) Indian cricketer Prithvi Shaw has submitted a comprehensive response to the Dindoshi Sessions Court in Mumbai, challenging the criminal revision plea initiated by actress Sapna Gill related to the alleged molestation incident.

Shaw has labeled Gill's request as “false and vexatious”, asking the court to reject her plea, asserting it was aimed solely at tarnishing his public reputation and harassing him by exploiting his celebrity status.

In their arguments presented to the sessions court, Shaw and his associate Ashish Yadav firmly denied the accusations made by Gill.

They provided a detailed timeline of events from February 15, 2023, indicating that at approximately 1 a.m., they were dining at the ‘Mansion Club’ located in the Sahara Star Hotel in the Santacruz area of Mumbai. It was there that a man named Shobhit Thakur approached Shaw to request a selfie.

Initially accommodating, Shaw soon found Thakur, allegedly intoxicated, demanding multiple selfies and behaving inappropriately after being turned down. Consequently, he was removed from the club by security personnel.

The reply elaborated that as Shaw and Yadav departed in their BMW, the same individual purportedly vandalized the car's windshield with a baseball bat.

Due to safety concerns, Prithvi Shaw was swiftly moved to another vehicle. It is alleged that Sapna Gill and her companions pursued them, blocking their path near the Oshiwara Police Station.

According to the claims, Gill exited her vehicle, verbally assaulted them, and threatened to lodge a false molestation complaint unless Rs 50,000 was paid. She subsequently left the scene, as per the defense.

Shaw and Yadav assert that Sapna Gill, described as “a struggling actress,” fabricated the entire incident for the sake of publicity and extortion. They contend that her allegations are retaliatory against the FIR previously filed by them.

The defendants noted that an FIR had already been lodged at the Oshiwara Police Station on February 15, 2023, under various IPC sections, leading to the arrest of Gill and one of her associates.

After securing bail, Gill is said to have initiated the current complaint out of personal vendetta, as outlined in their submission. They highlighted that the magistrate, upon determining a lack of prima facie evidence, mandated an inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC. During this inquiry, testimonies from five eyewitnesses were recorded, none of which corroborated Gill's claims.

Shaw and Yadav are urging the sessions court to dismiss the criminal revision application and impose compensatory costs.

Meanwhile, attorney Ali Kaashif Khan Deshmukh, representing Sapna Gill, accused Shaw of neglecting to submit his reply despite multiple court allowances.

“In the criminal revision application filed on behalf of my client, the court provided Prithvi Shaw several chances to respond. His failure to comply resulted in a fine of Rs 100 and a warning that if he did not reply by the next hearing, the case would proceed ex parte, with the possibility of an increased fine,” Deshmukh stated.