Mumbai Court Stays Summons Issued To Javed Akhtar In Kangana Ranaut's Criminal Intimidation Complaint

Sessions Judge AZ Khan in a revision application filed by Akhtar challenging the summons opined that not granting the stay, might result in multiplicity of legal actions between Akhtar and Kangana. The court suspended the proceedings related to the criminal complaint until the final verdict on the revision application is pronounced. The court posted the revision application for hearing on merits on October 18.

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.

Kangana Ranaut's complaint, filed on September 16, 2021, alleged that in March 2016, Javed Akhtar had invited her to his home to address a dispute involving actor Hrithik Roshan. Ranaut claimed that during this meeting, Akhtar made statements amounting to threats and insults. The complaint listed several offenses, including criminal intimidation, extortion, and insulting modesty by invading privacy.

On July 24, 2023, a Magistrate court in Andheri removed the extortion charge against Akhtar but issued process against him for the offences of criminal under Sections 506 and 509 of the IPC. Thus, Akhtar approached the sessions court challenging the issuance of process.

Advocate Vrinda Grover for Akhtar contended that the complaint was filed after the limitation period of three years from the date of the alleged incident. Despite the meeting having occurred in March 2016, the complaint was only filed in 2021, more than five years later, she said.

She further alleged that Ranaut filed her complaint against Akhtar as a response to his defamation complaint against her. This cross-complaint was filed around the same time that the Bombay High Court rejected Akhtar's plea to dismiss his defamation complaint.

Taking all these submissions into account, Grover requested a stay on the summons issued to Akhtar, arguing that such orders could lead to a flood of complaints and summonses.

Ranaut, through advocate Rizwan Siddiquee, opposed the revision application, contending that the Magistrate had already considered the delay in filing the complaint. Therefore, the order of issuance of process was not erroneous, Siddiquee contended.

The session judge issued an interim stay on the proceedings, considering the arguments from both sides. Akhtar's legal team comprises Advocates Priya Arora and Harsh Ramchandani.

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

Akhtar in his revision application has further stated that the Magistrate failed to consider the contradictions and improvisations made in Kangana’s complaint and verification statement before issuing summons.

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 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. Akhtar's revision application prays for quashing of the summons.

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.