No proof against Nana Patekar: Mumbai Police

Mumbai: The Mumbai Police on Thursday informed a local court that they have no evidence to prosecute actor Nana Patekar in the molestation case lodged against him by actress Tanushree Dutta.

In October last year Ms Dutta had filed complaint with police accusing Mr Patekar of misbehaving with her on the sets of their decade old movie “Horn Ok Pleasss” when the #metoo movement was in its peak in the country.

Deputy commissioner of police Paramjit Singh Dahiya on Wednesday informed that the Suburban Oshiwara police filed a ‘B Summary’ report before a Metropolitan Magistrate in Andheri. This type of report is filed when the police do not find any evidence against the accused to file a chargesheet and seek trial. The magistrate court is yet to pass an order on the closure of the report. Before accepting or rejecting the report, it will hear arguments of all  the parties concerned.

Ms Datta’s lawyer Nitin Satpute said that they would oppose the police report and even move the high court against it. He further said that the ‘B-summary’ is not the final report and they could oppose it before the court and post hearing if the court is satisfied, it could be directed to the police for reinvestigation.

Ms Dutta, in a statement issued said, “A corrupt police force and legal system is giving a clean chit to an even more corrupt person Nana who has been accused in the past of bullying, intimidation and harassment by several women in the film industry.”

She also alleged that during the shooting of the song sequence, Mr Patekar inappropriately touched her even after she clearly mentioned that she would not perform lewd, vulgar or uncomfortable steps.

Based on her complaint, a case was registered against Patekar and three others — choreographer Ganesh Acharya, the film's producer Samee Siddiqui and director Rakesh Sarang — for allegedly molesting Ms Dutta on the sets of the movie. The ‘B Summary’ report will absolve Acharya, Siddiqui and Sarang too of the charges.

The accused were booked under IPC Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), but no arrest was made so far.

Ms Dutta further said that she failed to understand how the ‘B summary’ report was filed when statements of witnesses were not yet recorded. She highlighted that their witnesses had been silenced by intimidation, and fake witnesses had been put forth to weaken the case. She asked what was the rush to file a ‘B summary’ report when all of her witnesses had not even recorded their statements yet.

While Mr Patekar’s advocate Aniket Nikam welcomed the move, Mr Nikam claimed all allegations against Mr Patekar were false since the inception. “Truth has the tendency to surface no matter how much one may want to suppress it. My client is innocent and justice will be served,” he told.