cops Said : ‘ No proof to prosecute Nana Patekar in Tanushree Dutta molestation case ‘

In a relief to veteran actor Nana Patekar, Mumbai Police informed a local court that it has no evidence to prosecute him in a molestation case lodged against him by actor Tanushree Dutta.

Dutta’s complaint against Patekar last year sparked a nationwide ‘#MeToo’ movement on social media.

The suburban Oshiwara police on Wednesday filed a ‘B Summary’ report before a metropolitan magistrate in Andheri, Deputy Commissioner of Police Paramjit Singh Dahiya told PTI.

A ‘B Summary’ report is filed when police do not find any evidence against the accused person to file a charge sheet and seek trial.

While Patekar’s advocate Aniket Nikam welcomed the move, Dutta’s lawyer Nitin Satpute claimed that the police acted in a negligent manner.

“All allegations against my client Nana Patekar were false since the inception. Truth has the tendency to surface no matter how much one may want to suppress it. My client is innocent and justice will be served,” Nikam told PTI.

Satpute, however, said neither he nor his client (Dutta) received any official information from police.

“The police report is not final. We can oppose it and after hearing us, the court, if satisfied, can direct the police to re-investigate or conduct further probe,” he said.

He also alleged that the police acted “negligently” to protect Patekar.

“The police have not done proper investigation, so we are opposing the summary report and are also going to file a writ petition before the Bombay High Court,” he said.

Dutta filed a complaint against Patekar in October 2018 in which she accused him of harassing and misbehaving with her while shooting a song on the sets of the film “Horn Ok Pleasss” in 2008.

She also alleged that during the shooting of the song sequence, Patekar inappropriately touched her even after she had clearly mentioned that she would not perform lewd, vulgar or uncomfortable steps.

Based on her complaint, a case was registered against Patekar and three others for allegedly molesting Dutta on the sets of the movie.

Besides Patekar, choreographer Ganesh Acharya, the film’s producer Samee Siddiqui and director Rakesh Sarang were also booked.

The ‘B Summary’ report will absolve them (Acharya, Siddiqui and Sarang) too from the case.

The accused were booked under Indian Penal Code 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), the official said, adding that no arrest has been made so far.

Congress Claim:’Conspiracy of silence over Rafale deal’

New Delhi:-The Congress today accused the central government of stonewalling questions over the Rafale fighter deal, saying there was a “conspiracy of silence” and an attempt to “bypass the national interest”.

Party spokesperson Priyanka Chaturvedi also claimed that the then Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar was not in the loop when the agreement to procure 36 fighter planes from France was signed in 2016 and demanded that he “break his silence” on the issue.

Addressing a press conference here on the issue which her party has been raising at various fora, Chaturvedi said Parrikar’s “silence amounts to agreement to the conspiracy that has betrayed the nation.”

She alleged that the Modi government had made “self- interest as its primary goal over the national interest.”

The spokesperson claimed that the union government had overpriced the aircraft, reduced the number of aircraft and taken the offset benefit away from a public sector company and handed it over to a “friendly” private company.

“I dont call Rafale a deal. It is a scam. And what the government is doing and how it is trying to defend itself is nothing but a sham,” Chaturvedi said.

“There is a conspiracy of silence to hide the investigation or to take responsibility to carry out an investigation in a very open and shut case of how you can help your own people and bypass national interest,” she added.

She said Parrikar, now the Chief Minister of Goa, was not even present in France when the deal was signed.

“Forget presence, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar had not even been prepared for the prime ministers announcement (about the deal) and was caught off-guard. What we understand is that he (Parrikar) did not even know a deal has been negotiated, signed and agreed upon,” She said.

The Congress spokesperson said her party expects Parrikar, who held the defence portfolio from November 2014 to March 2017, to answer questions related to the deal.

Debate on simultaneous polls a healthy sign of democracy; tribute to Vajpayee: PM

New Delhi -Describing the debate on holding the Lok Sabha and assembly polls together a healthy sign for democracy, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Sunday said it was an appropriate tribute to former premier Atal Bihari Vajpayee who changed the country’s political culture.

He said efforts were afoot and discussions being held about simultaneously holding the Lok Sabha and assembly polls.

“The government and the opposition ? both are putting forth their view points. This is a good development and a healthy sign for our democracy.

“I must say that developing healthy traditions for a sound democracy, making constant efforts to strengthen democracy, encouraging open-minded debates would also be an appropriate tribute to Atalji,” Modi said in his monthly ‘Mann ki Baat’ radio address.

Political parties are divided on the issue of simultaneous polls.

BJP, its NDA partners Shiromani Akali Dal, AIADMK, Samajwadi Party and Telangana Rashtra Samiti have supported it

The Congress, Trinamool Congress, Aam Aadmi Party, DMK, Telugu Desam Party, Left parties and the JD(S) have opposed the proposal

The parties have given their response to the Law Commission, which is set to come out with a legal framework required to hold the mammoth exercise

Chief Election Commissioner O P Rawat had recently said there are no chances of holding the two polls together without a legal framework. “Koi chance nahi,” he had said

“The lawmakers will take at least a year to frame a law that can be enforceable…,” Rawat had said

If simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies are held in 2019, the EC will require nearly 24 lakh EVMs, double the number required to hold only the Parliamentary polls

During their discussion with the Law Commission on May 16 this year on the issue of holding simultaneous polls, EC officials had said they would need around Rs 4,500 crore to buy nearly 12 lakh additional electronic voting machines (EVMs) and an equal number voter-verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) machines

In his address, the prime minister said the country will remain grateful to Vajpayee for bringing good governance into the main stream

“But, I just want to touch upon one more facet of Atalji’s legendary personality and that is the political culture which Atalji gave to India, his efforts in the direction of bringing about the changes in our political culture, his efforts to mould it into an organised framework and which proved very beneficial for India and a bigger benefit will accrue in days to come,” Modi said

He said the 91st constitutional amendment law brought in 2003 restricted the size of cabinets in states to 15 per cent of the total seats in the legislative assembly

“For many years in India, the political culture of forming a very large cabinet was being misused to constitute jumbo cabinets not only to create a divide, but also to appease political leaders. Atalji changed it.

“This effort of his resulted in saving of money as well as of resources. This also helped in improving efficiency,” Modi said

He said the constitutional amendment also ensured that the limit under the anti-defection law was enhanced from one-thirds to two-thirds. “Besides, clear guidelines were defined to disqualify the defector,” the prime minister said

Describing Vajpayee as a “true patriot,” he said it was during his tenure that the timing of presenting the budget was changed from 5 pm to 11 am

Earlier, as was the British tradition, the Budget used to be presented at 5 pm because in London, Parliament used to start working at that time

In 2001, the Vajpayee government changed the time of presenting the budget to 11 am

He said the framing of the Flag Code in 2002 was another “freedom” for India as it brought the national flag closer to the masses

“A number of such rules have been included in this code which made it possible to unfurl the tricolour in public places. This provided a chance to more and more of our countrymen to unfurl our national flag. Thus, he brought our beloved tricolour closer to the common man,” Modi said.

AG informs SC as Centre withdraws social media hub policy

New Delhi: The Centre today told the Supreme Court it will undertake a complete review of its social media policy and has withdrawn its notification proposing a social media hub, which some alleged could become a tool to monitor online activity of citizens.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra considered the submission of Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, that the notification was being withdrawn, and disposed of petitions challenging it.

Venugopal also told the bench, comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, that the social media policy would be reviewed completely by the government.

The bench was hearing a petition filed by TMC MLA Mahua Moitra alleging that the Centre’s social media hub policy was to be used as a tool to monitor social media activities of the citizens and should be quashed.

On July 13, the apex court had asked the government whether its move to create such a hub was to tap people’s WhatsApp messages, and observed that it will be like creating a “surveillance state”.

The Trinamool Congress legislator from West Bengal had asked whether the government wants to tap citizens’ messages on WhatsApp or other social media platforms.

Moitra had said the government had issued a Request For Proposal (RFP). The tender will be opened on August 20 for a software which would do 360 degree monitoring on all social media platforms such WhatsApp, Twitter and Instagram and track e-mail contents, she said.

Kamal Haasan and his production to file reply by Monday

Chennai: The Madras High Court on Friday ordered actor Kamal Haasan and his production house Rajkamal Films International to file a reply by Monday in connection with a suit seeking to stall the release of his “Vishwaroopam 2” on August 10.

When the civil suit moved by Pyramid Saimira Productions International against Haasan for recovery of Rs 5.44 crore came up for hearing, Justice C V Karthikeyan issued a notice to the actor and posted the matter for hearing on Monday.

The petitioner has said the money was paid to Haasan’s production house for producing a film titled “Marmayogi” in Tamil and Hindi.
According to the petitioner, they had signed a memorandum of understanding with Rajkamal Films on April 2, 2008 for the production of “Marmayogi” at an estimated budget of Rs 100 crore.
An amount of Rs 10.90 crore was paid to Rajkamal Films in two instalments towards the remuneration of Haasan for acting, directing and writing the story, screenplay and dialogue of the film.
It was acknowledged by the actor through a confirmation letter dated September 25, 2008, the petitioner stated.

The petitioner alleged that Haasan never showed interest in commencing the production of the film even after the payment and instead tried to release another film, “Unnaipol Oruvan”, by diverting the money paid to him for “Marmayogi”.
However, it was stalled by the petitioner by filing a recovery suit.
The court subsequently allowed the film to be released after obtaining a bank guarantee from the actor and the suit was in the trial stage, the petitioner submitted.

“On inquiries, we are given to understand that Kamal Haasan is heavily indebted to various creditors, having borrowed huge amounts from various persons to meet the production expenses of his forthcoming film, “Vishwaroopam 2.”

Since he is not able to repay any of the creditors, he is planning to release the film through Aascar Films so as to defeat, delay and defraud his creditors, including ourselves, the petitioner submitted.
As an interim relief, the petitioner wanted the court to pass an injunction, restraining Haasan from releasing the film, pending disposal of the suit.

Delhi High Court rejects plea alleging glorification of Sati in Padmaavat

The Delhi High Court today rejected a plea seeking penal action against the producers and the director of Bollywood movie ‘Padmaavat’ for alleged glorification of the practice of ‘sati’.

‘Sati’ is an obsolete funeral custom where a widow immolates herself on her husband’s pyre and the law prohibits it.

A bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar dismissed the plea saying the petitioner should have approached the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) at an appropriate time.

The high court also said in its detailed order that the Board has exercised its discretion carefully and not given a ‘U’ certificate for unrestricted viewing but granted ‘U/A’ certification.

“As on date, the film stands released as well. The film stands released without any complaints and it is already in public domain. If the petitioner was having any complaint with regard to the issue raised in his writ petition, he should have made a complaint before the CBFC at an appropriate time. We find no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed.” the court said.

The bench also said that writs cannot be issued against artistic works premised on individual perceptions.

The entire writ petition is premised on the sole submission that it has elaborately choreographed the Sati or Jauhar scenes in the history of Indian cinema. The writ petitioner does not even state at all that the film is supporting, justifying or propagating the practice of sati . It is therefore, not possible to hold that the film would invite penal action under the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987.

A PIL by social activist Swami Agnivesh had sought deletion of the scenes that depict the practice of ‘sati’.

The court had earlier observed that according to one of the disclaimers in the film, it is a work of fiction and therefore, it does not show any intention or animus on the part of the producers or director, Sanjay Leela Bhansali, to propagate the practice.

The petition, filed through advocate Mehmood Pracha, had sought directions to the Delhi Police to lodge FIR against Ajit Andhare, one of the producers, and Bhansali.

Central government standing counsel Manish Mohan, who appeared for the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the censor board, had opposed the plea, saying the movie was certified for public viewing after considering all the aspects.

The court had said that in the present day and age, it was “hesitant to accept” the petitioner’s claim that someone would follow such a practice just by seeing the movie.

The high court on January 25 had rejected a Rajasthan-based group’s plea seeking quashing of the certification granted to the film, saying the Supreme Court had permitted its release.

The film, which hit the theatres on January 25, is directed by Sanjay Leela Bhansali and has Deepika Padukone, Ranveer Singh and Shahid Kapoor in the lead roles. It is based on the saga of a historic battle of 13th century between Maharaja Ratan Singh and his army of Mewar and Sultan Alauddin Khilji of Delhi.

The impending release of the movie had led to several incidents of vandalism, including an attack on a school bus in Gurugram and torching of a Haryana Roadways bus on January 24. The set of the movie was vandalised twice — in Jaipur and Kolhapur, while its director Bhansali was roughed up by members of the Karni Sena last year.

The apex court had paved the way for nationwide release of the film by staying the ban on its screening in Gujarat and Rajasthan. It had also restrained other states from issuing any such notification or order banning the screening of the film

Prohibiting dubbed serial on TV violates Competition Act: SC

Prohibition on exhibition of dubbed serial on television hinders competition in the market and such an act amounts to violation of the Competition Act, 2002, the Supreme Court has said.

The apex court said such prohibition prevents competing parties in pursuing their commercial activities and amounts to “creating barriers” to the entry of new content in a dubbed TV serial.

A bench of Justices A K Sikri and Abhay Manohar Sapre said this while allowing an appeal of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) against an order of the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT).

“One can clearly view that prohibition on the exhibition of dubbed serial on the television prevented the competing parties in pursuing their commercial activities. Thus, the CCI rightly observed that protection in the name of the language goes against the interest of the competition, depriving the consumers of exercising their choice,” it said.

“It also hindered competition in the market by barring dubbed TV serials from exhibition on TV channels in the state of West Bengal. It amounted to creating barriers to the entry of new content in the said dubbed TV serial.

“Such act and conduct also limited the supply of serial dubbed in Bangla, which amounts to violation of the provision of section 3(3)(b) of the Act,” the bench said.

The court was dealing with a matter in which the CCI had challenged the COMPAT’s order in a case relating to exhibition of dubbed version of famous Hindi serial ‘Mahabharat’ in Bangla language which was to be shown in West Bengal.

Mumbai-based M/s BRTV, the producer of Mahabharat, had entrusted the sole and exclusive rights of the serial to M/s Magnum TV serials to dub the Hindi version in Bangla language.

Thereafter, Magnum TV had appointed M/s Hart Video as the sub-assigner to dub the serial in Bangla language after which two TV channels bagged the rights for telecasting the serial.

However, an association of certain producers in eastern India — Eastern India Motion Picture Association (EIMPA) and Committee of Artistes and Technicians of West Bengal Film and Television Investors — opposed it on the ground that in would adversely affect the artistes and technicians working there.

PIL against Bollywood movie ‘Shorgul’

PIL against Bollywood movie 'Shorgul'
PIL against Bollywood movie ‘Shorgul’

A petition seeking stay on the release on Bollywood movie ‘Shorgul’ was today filed before the AllahabadHigh Court bench here alleging certain scenes in it threatened to disturb social harmony.

The PIL was filed by a Meerut social worker Milan Som who sought a stay on the movie scheduled to be released on June 24.

According to petitioner’s counsel Digvijay Nath Dubey, certain scenes in the film were highly objectionable and threatened to disturb social harmony.

The movie, featuring Jimmy Shergill and Ashutosh Rana in lead roles, is based on friendship between a Hindu boy and a Muslim girl that snowballs into a political issue leading to unrest and chaos in society.

‘Shorgul’ has been shot in the backdrop of Muzaffarnagar communal riots in Uttar Pradesh in 2014.

( Source – PTI )

Bombay HC refuses to ban release of ”Santa Banta”

Bombay HC refuses to ban release of ''Santa Banta''
Bombay HC refuses to ban release of ”Santa Banta”

The Bombay High Court today refused to grant an interim stay on the release of upcoming film “Santa Banta Pvt Ltd” while hearing a petition alleging the movie had defamed members of the Sikh community and portrayed them in bad light.

Justice S C Dharmadhikari, heading a division bench, said, “We cannot stop the release of any film unless an opportunity is given to the producer and censor board to answer the allegations.”

Accordingly, the court asked the respondents to file affidavits in reply to the petition within two weeks.

The petition, filed by Charan Singh Sapra, Congress MLC from suburban Mulund, alleged the film had hurt the sentiments of the Sikh community as it contained “indecent and filthy” dialogues and jokes about the community members.

The petitioners lawyer B A Desai showed posters of the film to the bench alleging indecency shown by the actors and urging for a direction to the censor board to withdraw its certificate issued to the producers to exhibit the film in theatres all over the country.

Desai cited Supreme Court judgements to show that “indecent” behaviour of characters in a film cannot be tolerated and said the films dialogues were against public order.

He also pointed out that the dialogues of the film went against the spirit of the Constitution and said it might create law and order problems as it had hurt the sentiments of a particular community.

The jokes on Sardarji were intolerable and indecent and intended to defame them, said the lawyer.

He pleaded for an interim relief to stop the release of the film on April 22, but the court refused to consider it saying it would hear the other side before passing any such order.

Senior lawyer and former Advocate General Ravi Kadam appeared for the producers, while Kapil Moye appeared for the censor board.

( Source – PTI )

Pratyusha suicide: Rahul Singh’s bail plea rejected

Pratyusha suicide: Rahul Singh's bail plea rejected
Pratyusha suicide: Rahul Singh’s bail plea rejected

The anticipatory bail plea of TV producer Rahul Raj Singh, booked for abetment of his girlfriend actress Pratyusha Banerjee’s suicide, was today rejected by a local court after the prosecution said it could be a “pre-planned murder”.

Dindoshi sessions court Judge Khwaja Farooq Ahmed dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Rahul, who was booked for abetment of suicide after Pratyusha’s parents filed a compliant against him.

When the matter came up for hearing in the court, prosecution lawyer Falguni Brahmbhatt said, “We suspect that it could be murder and it needs to be probed. The entire incident could be pre-planned.”

She argued as to why Rahul took Pratyusha all the way to Andheri (from their residence in suburban Goregaon after she was found hanging), instead of a nearby hospital. She also sought to know why he later fled from the hospital.

“Why didn’t Rahul call police or take picture of the body before untying it from the fan,” she further asked.

Arguing for Rahul, his counsel Samir Sheikh said Pratyusha’s parents did not make any allegation against him in their first statement to police, then why did they file the FIR later.

He also said that Pratyusha didn’t leave a suicide note blaming Rahul for her death, and also there were no marks on her body other than the ligature wound.

Following both the arguments, the judge rejected Rahul’s anticipatory bail application.

On April 1, the 24-year-old actress, who shot to fame for her role as Anandi in hit TV series “Balika Vadhu”, allegedly committed suicide by hanging herself inside her flat at Goregoan area of western suburbs.

A case under IPC sections 306 (abetment of suicide), 504, 506 (criminal intimidation), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of IPC has been registered against Rahul, who is in hospital since Sunday.

According to the doctors attending on him, “he still has suicidal tendencies”.

Police are also trying to ascertain whether Pratyusha, who hailed from Jamshedpur, was in financial trouble or had any dispute with Rahul. Some reports suggested that the actress was depressed over not getting roles in TV serials.

Her parents had alleged that their daughter took the extreme step as she was subjected to torture by Rahul.

A few of Pratyusha’s friends, who claimed to have evidence against Rahul, had earlier recorded their statements with the police.

Pratyusha’s maid, in her statement, claimed Rahul used to physically and mentally harass the TV actress, police said.

( Source – PTI )