Mumbai court rejects Kangana Ranaut's plea seeking transfer of Javed Akhtar's complaint

Kangana Ranaut had filed a "Revision Application" under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

A court in Mumbai has dismissed actor Kangana Ranaut's plea in which she had sought transfer of lyricist Javed Akhtar's complaint against her.Ranaut had filed a "Revision Application" under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, invoking the "revisionary powers of the Court" to call and examine the records and proceedings of the Andheri Metropolitan Magistrate court.Ranaut through her lawyer Rizwan Siddiquee had pointed to the "irregularity of the proceedings" in the Andheri court and also stated that "the propriety, correctness and legality of his actions," were "not only against the established principles of law but also against the principles of natural justice".The Andheri Magistrate court had ordered Ranaut to appear in the court and explain what she had to say in response to Javed Akhtar's complaint.However, Siddiquee argued before the Dindoshi sessions court that Andheri Magistrate had continuously refused to record "specific written reasons", as to why the criminal proceedings "cannot be proceeded with" in the absence of Ranaut, even when Siddiquee has specifically mentioned in writing in the exemption application that the plea can be recorded in the absence of Ranaut through her Advocate and further that the proceedings can progress even in her absence.Ranaut had permanent exemption before the Andheri Magistrate court and Siddiquee had argued that the Magistrate had instead chosen "to give open threats to Ranaut of issuing "arrest warrant" against her if she fails to appear on the next date."However, Akhtar's lawyer Jay Bharadwaj argued before the Dindoshi court that "Revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely."Bharadwaj had further argued that Ranaut, had altogether wilfully absented herself on 11 hearings before the Andheri Magistrate out of which six hearings were regular hearings where exemption applications were moved and allowed and five hearings pertained to the period when Covid-19 SOPs exempted the personal appearance of the parties. Bharadwaj showed through court records that the Andheri Magistrate had in fact been "accommodated by the Court, even on flimsy grounds on each and every date of hearing."Bharadwaj had further argued that "the compliance of mandatory provision of law cannot be construed a threat or intimidation even by the farthest stretch of imagination. On the other hand, the contumacious behaviour of Ranaut is patently abundant from her acts of continuing defamation even after the complaint was filed."The detailed order by which the Dindoshi sessions court has rejected Ranaut's plea is expected to be made available soon.According to both Kangana and Akhtar, about five years ago, when the Kangana and Hrithik Roshan saga was unfolding, Akhtar had called Kangana home to ask her to let go of the issue. Akhtar states that Kangana did not listen to him and went ahead and defamed him while giving an interview to a news channel in 2020. Kangana, on the other hand, states that Akhtar had intimidated her and tried to extort an apology from her and thus it was a crime so proceedings should be initiated against Akhtar himself. She too has filed a complaint against Akhtar this year.

ALSO READ | 5 times Kangana Ranaut got schooled for her controversial statements