Tanushree Dutta sexual harassment case: Nana Patekar may escape stricter provisions of amended law

Written by Sadaf Modak | Mumbai | Updated: October 12, 2018 5:56:39 am

Nana Patekar

Related News

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.

Read | In fresh FIR, Tanushree Dutta claims her 2008 complaint was not registered properly

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.

HOT DEALS

Also read | Tanushree Dutta files FIR against Nana Patekar, three others in Mumbai

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.