Actor Shilpa Shetty has been discharged by a Mumbai court on Monday, in the obscenity case that was filed against her, after American actor Richard Gere publicly kissed her at a promotional event in Rajasthan back in 2007, Bar and Bench reported.
According to the Metropolitan Magistrate, Shetty seemed to be a “victim” in the case and Gere was the main accused.
Back in April 2007, in an AIDS awareness event, the Hollywood actor had held Shetty’s hand and kissed it while she was speaking. He went on to bend her backwards and kiss her on her cheek. In addition to making media headlines, the incident also faced massive outrage from political workers. They alleged that both the actors had dishonoured the Indian culture and blamed Shetty for not resisting Gere’s act, as per a Pinkvilla report.
A First Information Report (FIR) was registered against Shetty before a Judicial Magistrate First Class in Mundawar, Rajasthan, under Sections 292, 293, 294 (obscenity) of the Indian Penal Code, along with provisions of Information Technology and Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, based on a complaint against both Shetty and Gere.
In 2017, the Supreme Court had granted Shetty’s petition to transfer the case to Mumbai. Following which, the case was transferred to and heard by the Metropolitan Magistrate at Ballard Pier, Mumbai.
Later, Shetty had filed for discharge under Section 239 (discharge after considering police report and documents) and Section 245 (discharge after considering evidence) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, through Advocate Madhukar Dalvi.
In her application, Shetty stated that the allegation against her was “only that she did not protest when she was kissed by the co-accused Richard Gere” which by no means made her a perpetrator of the crime.
Recommended
During the hearing on Monday, the court considered all the police reports and documents in the case, and stated that the charges against the actor were groundless, while allowing her discharge under Section 239. However, the court rejected the application under Section 245 as the summons triable case had no provision for discharge.
“Not a single element of any of the alleged offence is being satisfied in the complaint. Moreover, none of the paper annexed with the final report discloses the act of present accused so as to bring her within the purview of Section 34 of IPC (common intention),” said the court.