SC quashes Bhandarkar rape charge
Swati Deshpande TNN
Mumbai: The Supreme Court on Monday quashed an eightyear-old rape case filed against film-maker
Madhur Bhandarkar by actress Pretti Jaiin, citing her wish to not pursue the charges as well as non-observance of laid-out legal procedures by a Mumbai magistrate.
Bhandarkar had moved the apex court this March against a Bombay high court order in which it declined to dismiss the case. When the hearing commenced in the SC on Monday, the director’s counsel said Jaiin did not wish to pursue the case since she was planning to get married soon.
Set to marry, actress did not want to prolong ‘rape’ case
SC Considers Wish & Merits Of The Matter
National Award-winning director Madhur Bhandarkar got reprieve from the Supreme Court on Monday as it quashed an eight-year-old rape case against him. His counsels Harish Salve and Shreyansh Mithare began the day’s proceedings in the court, saying there was a “new development”. Salve announced that the complainant, actress Pretti Jaiin, does not want to proceed with the case since she is getting married. The revelation sent a ripple through the court.
The bench of Justices H L Dattu and C K Prasad asked if Jaiin was marrying Bhandarkar. “No,” promptly replied Jaiin’s counsel B H Marlapalle, a former judge of the Bombay high court. “Bhandarkar is already married. She will be marrying someone else.” Marlapalle said the actress wanted to “move on”: “Eight years have passed since the FIR was filed. She wants to start life afresh. She is already engaged.” He suggested that no purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending.
The judges took into account Jaiin’s wish but thereafter heard the matter on merit. In 2004, the actress had accused Bhandarkar of “indulging in sexual intercourse with her 16 times from 1999 to 2004” on the promise of casting her in his movies. Jaiin had claimed that whenever she resisted, he threatened and coerced her.
Bhandarkar’s appeal in the apex court said both the HC order of March 2012 and an order passed by an Andheri magistrate in September 2011 were wrong and ought to be set aside since they caused “grave injustice” to the film-maker whose movies have won “critical acclaim”.
The Andheri magistrate, Babanrao Pantawane, had in 2011 held that there appeared to be an “ingredient of an offence of rape and criminal intimidation against Bhandarkar” and ordered that criminal action—which could include arrest and trial—must start against him. Prior to this order, the Mumbai police had twice asked for the rape case to be closed, arguing lack of evidence.
The magistrate’s directions sent Bhandarkar rushing to the Bombay high court, which first stayed all further progress in the case. But in March this year, the HC rejected his plea for Jaiin’s complaint and the magistrate’s order to be quashed. The matter thus landed in the SC.
On Monday, finally, things swung in Bhandarkar’s favour. The Supreme Court judges asked if the magistrate had recorded the statements of anyone apart from Jaiin. They were informed that he had not. Bhandarkar’s lawyers said the magistrate ought to have recorded the statements of witnesses too, since serious charges of rape had been levelled against the director. The SC said, “The magistrate did not follow the procedure laid down under section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code and chose to examine only the complainant (Jaiin).”
BOLLYWOOD-STYLE DRAMA PRETTI’S ACCUSATION In 1999, film-maker Madhur Bhandarkar was scouting for a new actress to essay the leading role in his venture. He approached Pretti Jaiin and promised to cast her in the lead. He then took advantage of her ambition, she alleged, and indulged in sexual relations with her but never fulfilled his promise
LEGAL JOURNEY July 7 2004
Jaiin sent a legal notice to
Bhandarkar in which she accused him of having sexual intercourse with her 16 times in five years after giving false promises of casting her in his movies. The notice claimed that whenever she resisted, Bhandarkar threatened her. Jaiin said he denied her a role in four films and gave him 48 hours to cast him in his next feature film July 22 2004 Jaiin lodged an FIR with Versova police, accusing Bhandarkar of rape under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code July 30 2004 A sessions court granted anticipatory bail to Bhandarkar. It observed that medical evidence would serve no purpose in the case since considerable time had elapsed, because he was a married man and seeing as the victim was “habitual to sexual relation” Dec 8 2004 Bombay high court confirmed the sessions court order Jan 16 2006 Police filed a ‘B-Summary’ report
before Andheri magistrate to close the case, saying “no evidence” was found against Bhandarkar. The investigating officer (IO) stated the complaint was false Sep 15 2006 Magistrate issued a notice to Jaiin after
agreeing with the IO’s views and asked the actress “why action should not be taken against her” Dec 19 2008 Magistrate directed further investigation into the original FIR without examining the victim on oath. The IO recorded additional statements of Jaiin and the witnesses she named July 18 2009
Versova police submitted another report citing lack of evidence Nov 11 2009 Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court Andheri, rejected the ‘B-Summary’ report and said it will conduct an inquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Dec 4 2010 Magistrate recorded Jaiin’s
statements Aug 2 2011 Magistrate recorded Jaiin’s statements Sep 9 2011 Magistrate issued “process” to proceed against Bhandarkar for rape charges Oct 2011 Bhandarkar moved the HC, asking that the criminal proceedings against him be quashed Mar 22 2012 Bombay HC rejected Bhandarkar’s application, said he must face proceedingsMar 27 2012
Bhandarkar approached the Supreme Court against the HC order Nov 5 2012 Apex court quashed magistrate’s order.
EARLIER COURT OBSERVATIONS SESSIONS COURT | While granting Bhandarkar anticipatory bail in 2004: Medical evidence would serve no purpose since There was no explanation to the silence time had elapsed, because he was a married man and of the victim for over four years and no seeing as the victim was “habitual to sexual relation” proof of threat to her life as alleged
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | While confirming Bhandarkar’s anticipatory bail:
The claim of the complainant that she was repeatedly raped under threat seems to be unfounded… This is so because the offence was allegedly committed since 1999 but was not been reported till now and… the complainant accepts that initially she consented to keep physical relations with the respondent
It cannot be overlooked that Pretti is ambitious and intends to somehow make a career in the film industry… There is... record in court that would cast doubt on her credentials
While rejecting Bhandarkar’s plea to quash criminal proceedings:
Proceedings do not show vindictive abuse of process of court by a frustrated actor or model
SUPREME COURT OBSERVATION
The magistrate had not followed the procedure laid down in law for issuance of process under section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code. It had chosen instead to examine only the complainant (Pretti Jaiin)…. She is not interested in pursuing the complaint any further
I want to marry and settle down in life. I want peace. The case was delaying my marriage. The only solution to end the eight-year-long fight was to resolve our differences and move on. We met outside court and found this was the best way to end the battle — Pretti Jaiin
It is good that she has moved on in life. I was waiting in the corridor when the judgment came. I didn’t know how to react. I just walked away with tears in my eyes. Police investigated the case and found the allegation false — Madhur Bhandarkar
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment