'Kangana Ranaut Celebrity But Also Accused In A Case': Mumbai Court Refuses Permanent Exemption From Appearance In Javed Akhtar Defamation Case

Magistrate RR Khan of the Andheri Metropolitan Court observed that Ranaut was yet to appear before the court with an intent to cooperate in trial, and that the court was yet to frame particulars of offence in the case.

In the order passed on Tuesday but made available on Thursday, the Court also observed that being a celebrity, the actor may have professional assignments, "but she cannot forget that she is an accused in this case" and that her cooperation was essential "for the fair progress of the trial."

"It is pertinent to mention here that the accused has built up her mind that her presence in this case is not necessary and her advocate will look after the legal formalities," the court observed in a 15-page order.

The court also observed that all her exemption requests had been granted without imposing any costs or taking any coercive step. It added that in purview of provision of section 251 of CrPC, presence of accused on at least on one occasion was essential for further progress of the case. "If accused is permanently exempted at this juncture then the complainant, a senior citizen will be seriously prejudiced and there will be no progress in the trial."

The court added, "It is matter of record that since service of summons the accused appeared for two occasions. At one time by taking the case on board and on another occasion for making allegation of bias against the court. Till date the accused has not appeared with an intent to cooperate the court for the trial of allegations levelled against her. Keeping in view the earlier conduct of accused as per record of the case, non framing of particulars of the offence till date and strong agitation of complainant regarding willful absence of accused are the grounds which compel this court for non exercise of judicial discretion in favour of accused atleast at this juncture," the order reads.

The court was hearing a defamation case filed by Akhtar against Ranaut. The actor sought transfer of the case from the concerned court after the Magistrate observed that a warrant can be issued against her to secure her presence. However, Ranaut, represented by Advocate Rizwan Siddiquee, failed to get the case transferred despite approaching courts at the higher level.

Ranaut's exemption application said that attending the dates of trial on a regular basis will require her to travel miles from different locations to Mumbai resulting in undue hardship and financial losses. She requested for grant of permanent exemption stating that the offence was bailable and she would appear through her advocate in the trial. The application also undertook that she would remain present before the court "when essentially required."

Akhtar, represented by Advocate Jay Bhardwaj, opposed Ranaut's application calling it to be an attempt to prolong the matter. He also contended that Ranaut was not attending the court inspite of being in Mumbai and continued with the defamatory statements against the complainant.

He submitted that section 205 of CrPC does not give right to accused to seek permanent exemption even if the offence was bailable. Arguing that Ranaut was showing casual approach towards court, he sought rejection of her application alongwith directions to her for remaining present before the court.

Citing Ranaut's conduct, the Magistrate relied on an observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Buddhikota Subbarao V/s. K. Parasram and others (AIR 1996 SC 2687) and rejected the application. The SC observation said, "No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner he wishes. However, access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions."