Written by Sadaf Modak | Mumbai | Updated: October 12, 2018 5:56:39 am
Delhi HC in sexual harassment case: Dont reveal details
Up to him (Akbar) to respond… women taking big risk, difficult for them to speak out: Smriti Irani
Bombay High Court judge supports #MeToo; criticises nauseating patriarchy in legal profession
ACTOR NANA Patekar, against whom an FIR has been filed based on a complaint by actress Tanushree Dutta, may not have to face the stricter provisions of the amended laws against sexual harassment as the alleged incident took place 2008, when the offences he is booked for were bailable.
In the FIR filed by Oshiwara police late on Wednesday, Patekar, choreographer Ganesh Acharya, director Rakesh Sarang and producer Samee Siddiqui, have been booked under sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) under the Indian Penal Code. Both sections are bailable.
A senior police officer said that since the FIR is recorded based on the law in place at the time of the alleged incident in 2008, the sections invoked in the FIR are 354 and 509, which are bailable. An amendment to the law was made through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, after protests across the country following the gangrape and death of a 23-year-old Delhi woman in December 2012.
- LENOVO IP 510 (80SV00YCIH) (Core i5 -7th Gen/ 8 GB RAM/ 1… ₹ 49700 MRP ₹ 68500 -27%₹0 CashbackBuy Now
- Asus Vivobook X510UA-EJ1070T(15.6"FHD anti Glare/i3-8130U(8th Gen.)/4 GB DDR4/1 TB/WIN10/FingerPrint/Backlit KB/GOLD/1Y) ₹ 36875 MRP ₹ 47990 -23%₹5531 CashbackBuy Now
The law was amended based on recommendations of a judicial committee headed by former Chief Justice of India J S Verma, which extended the scope of sexual harassment, including offences like stalking, voyeurism, physical contact involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures with a maximum punishment of seven years. The provisions were also made non-bailable. “The previous law dealing with sexual harassment was limited in its definition. The amendment has brought stringent provisions. But it cannot be applied in a retrospective manner for an incident that took place before the amendment in 2013,” said advocate Flavia Agnes, who founded Majlis Manch, a legal centre for womens rights. In the two-page complaint submitted by Dutta against Patekar and the others, she has said the accused behaved in an inappropriate manner on the set of film Horn Ok Pleasss at Filmistan Studio in Goregaon in March 2008.
Congress' Sanjay Nirupam comes under fire for comment favouring north Indians[hhmc]
Rhea and Varun reveal why their film is called Jalebi[hhmc]
Six women journalists accuse union minister MJ Akbar of sexual harassment[hhmc]
Brett Kavanaugh is the 114th Justice, and 108th white male on Bench: News in Numbers[hhmc]
More Related News
In fresh FIR, Tanushree Dutta claims her 2008 complaint was not registered properly
Sexual harassment law: when & where it holds, against whom