Javed Akhtar challenges summons issued to him on complaint by Kangana Ranaut

Javed Akhtar has filed a revision petition before the sessions court against summons sent to him by a magistrate’s court on July 24 in connection with a complaint filed by actor Kangana Ranaut. The magistrate court had said that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against him on grounds, including criminal intimidation.In her complaint, Ranaut had said that in March 2016, when she was involved in a personal dispute with a co-actor, Akhtar had called her and her sister to his house in Juhu. He called them “with malafide intention and ulterior motive” and “criminally intimidated and threatened” them to tender a written apology to the co-actor to favour him, the complaint said. The complaint also said that Akhtar made unwarranted and uncalled for statements on her moral character. The court summoned Akhtar, after verifying the complainant and recording the statement of Chandel.

In the petition filed on Monday through his lawyer, Jay Bharadwaj, Akhtar said that Ranaut’s complaint was filed after he approached the court alleging defamation against her for a television interview she gave in 2020 after the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput  A trial in the case is ongoing against Ranaut with three witnesses examined so far. The plea by Akhtar states that Ranaut made attempts to delay the proceedings and the complaint was filed against him only as a “counter-blast”. The plea states that the maximum punishment under the sections in which he has been summoned-section 506 (criminal intimidation) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code-is three years and the complaint could have been filed within three years. The plea also states that Ranaut had made contrary statements in her verification complaint and improvised on her allegations. “…the Ld. (learned) Magistrate failed to appreciate the fact that summoning of an accused is a serious matter and the same should not be done in a mechanical fashion and normal and scrutiny of facts… It was incumbent upon the Ld. Magistrate to put necessary questions to Respondent No. 2 and the witnesses in order to ascertain the truthfulness of the allegations and in the instant case,” the petition states. It seeks a stay on the proceedings before the magistrate complaint till the revision petition is decided by the sessions court and also seeks setting aside of the magistrate court order. The Dindoshi sessions court is likely to hear it on August 8.