Background of the Case
In 2008, Tanushree Dutta accused Nana Patekar of indecency during the shooting of a song for Horn Ok Pleassss. According to Dutta, Patekar made her uneasy by allegedly coming too close during the shooting. She said that her complaints were disregarded that time, and she eventually concluded the project. The issue crawled up again during India’s figurative #MeToo movement in 2018 when Dutta made her allegations public again, leading to filing of an FIR with Oshiwara Police Station in Mumbai.
The FIR charges Patekar and others with harassment under various sections of IPC including Section 354 (outraging a woman’s modesty). However, in 2019, Mumbai Police submitted a ‘B-summary’ report that the allegations were false and lack evidence. The report practically closed this case unless it was challenged.
Court’s Recent Decision
On March 7, 2025, Magistrate NV Bansal dismissed Dutta’s protest petition against the closure report, citing two major considerations in the court’s judgment:
- Limitation Period: The incident is said to have occurred in March 2008. However, Dutta filed her complaint in October 2018, clearly defined beyond a decade after the event. Under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), cognizance of any offence is barred by a limitation period. A limitation of three years is provided for offences punishable with 2 years of imprisonment, as per earlier legislation, amended in 2013. The court also pointed out that neither Dutta nor the State sought for the condonation of this delay.
- Lack of Evidence: The court affirmed the closure report issued by the police, who had found no evidence against Patekar and others. There were constant contradictions in the statements made by witnesses and Dutta’s allegations were not proved by any definitive evidence for either of the alleged incidents in 2008 or the claims made in 2018.
Reactions to the Verdict
Nana Patekar’s Side
Patekar’s lawyer, Advocate Padma Shelatkar, welcomed the verdict as vindication for her client. In her statement, she termed the entire sequence of events “malicious,” “completely false,” and a concerted attack on Patekar’s reputation. She further stated that this judgment stands as a testimony and a beacon of light for the cases against men who have been falsely accused in the wake of the current #MeToo movement.
Tanushree Dutta’s Response
Dutta expressed her disappointment, but she has maintained her resolve. In the social media posts that followed the verdict, she alleged that witnesses who were supporting her case were threatened by Patekar’s aides in 2019. She added that the media twisted the court’s findings and reiterated that her legal team will continue its struggle for justice.
Broader Implications
The dismissal of this case has reopened the discussion of delayed complaints in harassment cases and their legal stance. Critics often point out that survivors suffer most from adherence to limitation periods, as some survivors may take years to come forward because of trauma or fear of retaliation. Supporters of the ruling, however, see it as a necessary safeguard against false accusations.
Impact on India’s #MeToo Movement
Dutta’s allegations acted as a trigger for the #MeToo movement in India and encouraged women across industries to narrate their experiences with harassment. Some see one of the several setbacks for the movement in this judgment, while others see it as highlighting the need for strong evidence during legal proceedings.
Legal Considerations
The case presents several legal hurdles:
- Limitation Periods: It has been argued that limitation periods for sexual harassment cases need to be extended or altogether abolished, as they are of a very special nature.
- Burden of Proof: Survivors would find it hard to provide corroboration decades after incidents occur, thereby putting them at a disadvantage against legal standards.
- Accountability: The verdict indicates whether institutions are still being compliant or whether they still favor the protection of survivors against this.
Conclusion
The dismissal of Tanushree Dutta’s application provides an important milestone in India’s ongoing struggle for addressing workplace harassment and gender justice. It brings alive the procedural limitations of the legal system, and in doing so, showcases the complexity surrounding movements like #MeToo. The ongoing debates will ensure that this case is firmly anchored as a mark in envisioning justice and accountability for harassment cases.
About Author
Syeda Ayesha is a passionate 3rd year BBA LLB student at Sultan-Ul-Uloom College of Law in Hyderabad, with a special interest in criminal law and family law. She has built her academic journey on a solid foundation of legal principles, progressing from basic to advanced levels, and is eager to apply this knowledge in practice. Determined to gain practical experience, she is committed to learning more about the law. Ayesha is excited about the opportunity to work in a dynamic legal environment, which she sees as a valuable avenue for both personal and professional growth.
