The issue of delay in reporting cases of sexual harassment has often been a critical factor in legal proceedings, affecting the admissibility of complaints.
The recent ruling by the Hon'ble Court of Mumbai in the case of Bollywood actress Tanushree Dutta versus veteran actor Nana Patekar highlights the consequences of time-barred complaints and sparked renewed discussions on the challenges faced by survivors.
The Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Andheri, Mumbai, Justice N.V. Bansal dismissed Ms. Dutta's plea vide order dated March 07, 2025, challenging the relief granted to Mr. Patekar, citing an expired limitation period for the alleged 2008 incident and a lack of evidence for the 2018 allegations.
Background of the Case
Tanushree Dutta made allegations against Nana Patekar in 2018, accusing him of sexually harassing her on the sets of the 2008 film 'Horn OK Please' during a dance sequence. She claimed that Mr. Patekar had acted inappropriately and made her uncomfortable despite her objections. The case became one of the pivotal moments in India's #MeToo movement, encouraging numerous women across industries to share their experiences of workplace sexual harassment.
Following Ms. Dutta's allegations, an FIR was lodged on October 10, 2018, against Mr. Patekar
- In relation to the offences punishable under Section 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (Section 74 and 79 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita), about the First Incident which alleged to be occurred on 23.03.2008 and
- Second Incident which alleged to be occurred on October 05, 2018.1
This led to the investigation being carried out by the Investigating Officer which concluded that the FIR filed by Ms. Dutta was malicious and false, leading the police to submit a closure report.
Ms. Dutta contested this through a protest petition being filed in December 2019, seeking further investigation. However, the court upheld the closure report, stating that there was no legal basis to continue proceedings against the accused.
|
DATE |
LIST OF INCIDENTS |
|
23.03.2008 |
Alleged first incident occurred. |
|
05.10.2018 |
Alleged second incident of outraging modesty took place. |
|
10.10.2018 |
F.I.R. was registered as Oshiwara Police Station. |
|
05.12.2019 |
Protest Petition was filed to reject the final report of the police. |
Legal Grounds for Dismissal
Under Indian law, the limitation period for taking cognizance of offences was prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 514 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita). The provision restricts courts from initiating proceedings if the complaint is filed beyond the prescribed time limit, which varied depending on the severity of the offence.
In this case, the allegations related to the 2008 incident were primarily under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (Section 74 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita), which deals with outraging a women's modesty. As per Section 468 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the limitation period for such offences was three years. Since the alleged first incident occurred in March 2008 and the complaint was lodged in October 2018, the court ruled that the case was time barred.
Additionally, it was observed that neither the complainant (Ms. Dutta) nor the State filed an application for condonation of delay under Section 473 of the CrPC (Section 519 BNSS), which permit courts to extend the limitation period if a valid reason for the delay is provided. The absence of such an application further led to the dismissal of the plea.
"As such application for condonation of delay is absent, there is no reason before me to take cognizance after long lapse of more than 7 years after expiry of period of limitation. Moreover, there is no reason before me to exercise extraordinary discretionary powers to condone the delay in the interest of Justice, where opportunity to hear the proper accused is not given. If such huge delay is condoned without any sufficient cause then it will be against the principle of equity and true spirit of law. Therefore, I conclude that offence in relation to first incident occurred on 23.03.2008 is not within limitation and Court is barred to take the cognizance of the same," the court remarked.
Further, the court stated that since it has not dealt with the facts of the first incidence, alleged first incidence cannot be said to be false nor can be said as true.
Rejection of the 2018 Allegations: Lack of Evidence
Apart from the time-barred nature of the 2008 allegations, the case also included claims of a 2018 incident where Mr. Patekar allegedly made derogatory remark about Ms. Dutta on a News Channel saying "She must have been on her periods" which had outraged her modesty and embarrassed her in public.
It was the case of the Investigating Officer that Mr. Patekar was unaware of the fact that his statement is being recorded in camera which itself clarifies absence of Mensrea on the part of the accused. Hence, the court stated that in the absence of prima facie proof of guilty intention (mensrea) on the part of the accused, ingredients of offence punishable under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (Section 79 BNS) are not attracted. Hence, the proceedings against the accused are dismissed on the grounds of insufficient evidence to support the allegations.
In the case ofRaju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.,the court stated that an Act to qualify under section 354 of IPC,the assault or criminal force must have been done with the intent to outrage the modestyand in the present case the court stated that assault was not accompanied by any behavior that would suggest sexual overtones.2Thus, mens rea is considered as an important aspect for the act to be covered under Section 354 IPC (Section 74 BNS).
Thus, the court, by applying Section 203 of the CrPC (Section 226 of BNSS), dismissed the case, citing a lack of substantive grounds for prosecution.
The court's decision has brought legal relief to Nana Patekar, who has consistently denied the allegations, while also igniting fresh debates on the barriers to justice in cases of sexual harassment.
This ruling highlights the ongoing challenge in prosecuting sexual harassment cases, where evidence often relies on testimonial accounts rather than tangible proof. It also underscores the difficulties survivors face when seeking justice through the legal system, which frequently demands high standards of corroboration.
Reactions from Involved Parties
Ms. Dutta expressed her disappointment with the verdict, stating
"This fight is not just about me! it represents the struggle of countless women who face harassment and intimidation. The system often fails survivors, but I will continue to seek justice and speak my truth."3
On the other hand, Nana Patekar's legal team welcomed the ruling, emphasizing that the verdict reaffirmed his innocence. In a statement, his representatives said,
"The court's decision reinforces our faith in the judiciary. Mr. Patekar has always maintained that the allegations were baseless, and this ruling validates his position."
The #MeToo Movement in India
The MeToo movement in India gained momentum in 2018, with Ms. Dutta's allegations serving as a catalyst for conversations on workplace sexual harassment and abuse. Her case, along with other case like allegations against Sajid Khan for sexual impropriety, allegation by Iranian Model against Luv Ranjan, Umesh Ghadge, allegation against writer lyricist comedian Varun Grover for touching a female student inappropriately while studying in IT-BHU shed light on systemic issues such as power imbalances, victim intimidation and the lack of institutional support for survivors.4
Though the verdict of the Mumbai Court in this case have marked a setback for Ms. Dutta and closed this particular legal chapter, but the broader conversation on strengthening protection for survivors remains ongoing.
Legal Framework and Limitation Period under POSH and BNSS –
UnderSection 9 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 also known as the POSH Act, any aggrieved woman may file a complaint of sexual harassment at workplacewithin a period of three months from the date of incident and in case of a series of incident, within a period of three months from the date of last incident.
However, the law provides some flexibility, allowing the Internal Committee (IC) or the Local Committee (LC), as the case may be, to extend this period by an additional three months, if it is satisfied that the circumstances were such which prevented the woman from filing a complaint within the said period.
In certain cases Indian courts have recognized that delay in reporting cases of sexual harassment should not be the only ground for dismissal. For instance, in the case ofX vs. District Magistrate (South) and Another (2019)wherein the Division Bench overturned the ruling of the LC,observing that the complaint was dismissed solely on account of the limitation period without considering substantive issues of justice and hence directed the LC to conduct a fresh inquiry.5
Therule of limitation as per BNSS, for the offence of sexual harassment under Section 75 is punishable for the period of up to three years or fine or both. So as per Section 514 of BNSS, thelimitation period for filing the complaint in respect of the offence is three years.
The complaint of Sexual Harassmentcan also be filed simultaneouslyunder BNS and POSH Act. In the case ofM.A.B v. Principal Chief of Commissioner & Ors6.,Mr. Bhatt, a senior officer in Income Tax department faced allegation of sexual harassment from subordinate female employee. The complainant in the instant case registered FIR under Section 354 RPC and escalated the matter to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar. Also in parallel to this legal proceeding she filed the complaint to Internal Committee regarding the same. But the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar observed that the complaint before the IC was made beyond the prescribed period of limitation, thus cannot be entertained.
Limitation period of sexual harassment in respect of various countries –
Shreya Bhushan , Intern at S.S. Rana & Co. has assisted in the research of this article.
Footnotes
1 /LAWCHAKRA-The_State_of_Maharashtra_v_Nana_Patekar_and_Ors.pdf
5 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/13324529/
6 https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/display-9241205155831-576451.pdf
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
