Kangana Ranaut’s Statements Improvised, Complaint Hit By Limitation: Javed Akhtar Approaches Sessions Court Against Summons

Veteran lyricist Javed Akhtar has approached Dindoshi Sessions Court in Mumbai to set aside the Magistrate’s order issuing summons and process against him on a private complaint filed by actor Kangana Ranaut regarding her dispute with actor Hrithik Roshan.

Akhtar claims Kangana filed a false and fabricated complaint, after all her delay tactics in the defamation complaint he filed against her, failed.

“The Respondent No. 2 (Kangana), in order to delay the (defamation) proceedings made 8 different challenges before various courts which were all dismissed. When the Respondent No. 2 did not succeed in her delay tactics, she proceeded to file a countercomplaint with false, fabricated and concocted averments,” Akhtar says in his revision application.

Akhtar states that the Magistrate failed to consider the contradictions and improvisations made in Kangana’s complaint and verification statement before issuing summons. He further claimed that the actress’ complaint was time barred by at least two year as the alleged incident dated back to 2016.

On July 24, 2023 the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court in Andheri issued summons to Akhtar for offences under Sections 506 (criminal intimidation) and 509 (insult to a woman’s modesty by words spoken) of the IPC on a private complaint filed by Ranaut

Ranaut accused Akhtar of criminal intimidation and extortion in her public feud with actor Hrithik Roshan in 2016 by allegedly asking her to apologize to Roshan in writing. The court had asked Akhtar to remain present on August 5.

The duo has been embroiled in a tussle ever since Ranaut made certain allegedly defamatory remarks against Akhtar in an interview with news anchor Arnab Goswami after actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s demise on July 14, 2020.

The defamation case Akhtar filed in November 2020 following these remarks has progressed with over three witnesses being examined so far.

In the revision application filed through advocate Jay Bharadwaj, Akhtar called Ranaut’s complaint was a mere counterblast to harass him as she “never pursued her own complaint.” After filing the case in September 2021 she appeared before the trial court in July, 2022 for the first time after nearly 12 adjournments.

“This is clearly indicative of the fact that the complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 was only done as a counter-measure and to coerce the Petitioner to somehow settle the matter,” Akhtar's plea states. Akhtar further faulted her for not getting the independent witness to testify.

Akhtar's revision application seeks a stay on Kangana’s complaint before the Magistrate as well as quashing of the summons. “The Magistrate has failed to deliberate over the case at hand and jumped to conclusions in a hasty and inappropriate manner which has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice,” the application states.

The application points out that Akhtar has been summoned for offences punishable under Sections 506 and 509 I.P.C. in which the maximum punishment is 3 years. Therefore, under section 468(2)(c) CrPC, the complaint should have been filed within three years from the date of alleged incident, it is contended. As the incident dates back to March 2016 the complaint should have been filed by March 2019. However, the complaint was finally filed in 2021, after a gap of five years, it is averred.

“The Ld. Magistrate failed to appreciate that Respondent No. 2 made contrary stands in the complaint and improvised versions in the verification statement which warranted further scrutiny rather than passing a mechanical order summoning the Petitioner,” the plea states.