Read Time: 04 minutes
The Court observed that a woman being groped on the street and touched on a public way or in public transport cannot be termed as accused or participative to an extent of mental culpability.
The Sessions Court, Greater Bombay while discharging Shilpa Shetty in the Richard Gere Kissing case observed that a woman groped on street is not an accused.
The Additional Sessions Judge SC Jadhav observed, "A woman being groped on the street and touched on a public way or in public transport cannot be termed as accused or participative to an extent of mental culpability and she cannot be held for illegal omission to make her liable for prosecution."
While considering the material placed on record and the police papers, it was observed by the court that there was no material against Shilpa Shetty Kundra under Sections 292, 293, 294, 120-B of IPC, 1860, Section 67 of IT Act, 2000 and under Sections 4 and 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.
The kissing incident had taken place during an AIDS awareness programme held in Rajasthan and had hit national headlines. One of these cases was filed in Rajasthan and the actor was booked under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Information Technology Act.
Shetty had pleaded to transfer the Rajasthan case to Mumbai, and the Supreme Court allowed it in 2017. The case was then heard by the Metropolitan Magistrate at Ballard Pier in Mumbai. In January 2022, the magistrate's court discharged Shetty after observing that she seemed to be the victim of Gere's act.
However, the prosecution filed a revision application before the sessions court, claiming that the magistrate's order was "illegal, bad in law and against the principle of natural justice" and that a case was made out to frame charges against Shetty.
Shetty's response, filed through advocate Prashant Patil, said that the magistrate court's order was well-reasoned and based upon the guidelines of the Supreme Court and that the revision application needed to be dismissed with heavy costs.
However, the sessions court observed, "There is absolutely no prima facie material to proceed with the trial. As such, the impugned order does not require any interference at the hands of the court."
The Criminal Revision Application was accordingly dismissed.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Shilpa Shetty
Statute: Indian Penal Code 1860, Information Technology Act 2000 and Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.
Please Login or Register
