Javed Akhtar Granted Relief as Court Halts Kangana Ranaut’s Complaint

Javed Akhtar Granted Relief as Court Halts Kangana Ranaut’s Complaint

Javed Akhtar Granted Relief as Court Halts Kangana Ranaut’s Complaint

On Thursday, a sessions court in Mumbai issued a stay order on the criminal proceedings and summons issued by a Magistrate court to lyricist Javed Akhtar in connection with a complaint that was submitted by star Kangana Ranaut charging criminal intimidation and insulting modesty.

A revision case that was submitted by Akhtar through his lawyer, Jay Bharadwaj, challenging the judgement that issued summonses was heard today by a sessions judge named AZ Khan, who then rendered his verdict.

Vrinda Grover, who represents Akhtar, pleaded with the judge to delay the execution of the summons order. She argued that the summons was issued by the Magistrate in a mechanistic fashion, and that it was in response to a complaint that had been made after the limitation period had elapsed.

The sessions court concurred with the representations and expressed the opinion that there would be a number of issues and a multiplicity of actions if a stay of proceedings was not granted.

As a consequence of this, the judge has halted the proceedings in the criminal complaint until the revision application has been decided upon definitively.

On October 18, he submitted the revision petition for consideration of the merits of the case.

On September 16, 2021, Ranaut had filed a lawsuit, stating that Akhtar had invited her to his residence in March 2016 to address an existing quarrel with star Hrithik Roshan. The dispute had been going on since March 2016. She claimed that Akhtar made several statements during this discussion that may be construed as threats or insults to her person or her position.

In her complaint against Akhtar, she highlighted violations of the Indian Penal Code for the acts of criminal intimidation (Section 506), extortion (Section 383), and insulting modesty by violating her personal (Section 509).

On July 24 of this year, a magistrate court in Andheri dismissed the accusation of extortion that had been brought against Akhtar. However, the court still ordered him to appear before it in connection with the violations of Sections 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code.

After then, Akhtar filed a petition with the sessions court opposing the same.

The legal representation for Akhtar argued that the complaint was submitted after the three-year statute of limitations had passed from the date of the occurrence.

Advocate Grover brought out the fact that the meeting in which Akhtar is said to have made the allegedly insulting words took place in March of 2016, but the complaint wasn’t filed until 2021, more than 5 years after the meeting took place.

Grover further said that Ranaut filed this cross-suit against Akhtar in reaction to his case against her alleging defamation. The complaint that Grover filed against Ranaut alleged that she had defamed Grover. The complaint was submitted by Ranaut on September 16, which is roughly around the same time that the Bombay High Court decided to reject Akhtar’s defamation complaint against her.

Grover further asserted that the terms that were used in her complaint were inconsistent with those that were mentioned in an interview that was shown on television.

In light of these arguments, Grover asked for a stay to be placed on the summons that had been delivered to Akhtar.

“This order is a serious violation of the law, and the courts, both trial courts and high courts, are already overburdened. If this (the issuance of such orders) is permitted, the floodgates will be opened, and anyone who wants to can come forward with a complaint, which will result in the issuance of a summons. “The legal system will devolve into a wrestling match,” Grover said.

Advocate Rizwan Siddiquee, Ranaut’s legal representative, voiced opposition to the revision application. He mentioned that the Andheri magistrate had taken into consideration the length of time that had passed since the initial complaint was filed.

In light of this, he stated that there was no error in the order, and so there was no need for a stay of execution.

“You cannot continue to file frivolous cases, rush to court, or attempt to confuse the court with scattered arguments. These behaviours will not be tolerated.” During the course of the interview, it is impossible for there to have been a word-for-word replication of the original answers. It’s possible that we overlooked certain things. The defamation case is less essential than the one that I’m involved in (Ranaut’s). Should the request for a stay be granted, this will lead to discrimination against all women. It is not possible to transform into a moral person simply by producing certificates. Siddiquee said that one does not call a woman inside their home and say things of that nature.

Today in court, after the parties had been heard from at length, the session judge dictated the order and commanded that the proceedings be stayed in their entirety for the time being.