A Mumbai court on Monday, January 24 released Shilpa Shetty, who was charged with indecent and indecent assault in an incident where co-defendant Richard Gere publicly kissed her. The incident occurred during an awareness campaign in Rajasthan in 2007. A total of three cases were brought against Shilpa in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh in 2007, accusing Shilpa of publicly kissing the Hollywood star and AIDS campaigner.
After perusing the complaint that sparked the case, Metropolitan Magistrate Ketaki Chavan deduced that the actress was a victim of the alleged conduct of Defendant No. 1 Richard Gere.
After filing a police report and documents, the magistrate was convinced that the charges against Shilpa Shetty were baseless. Therefore, the actress was dismissed.
“None of the alleged offenses in the complaint were satisfied. Furthermore, none of the documents attached to the final report disclose the conduct of the current defendant in order to bring her under the jurisdiction of Article 34 of the IPC (joint intent).” observed order of.
Following the incident, the Magistrate 1 in Mundawa, Rajasthan, lodged a complaint with Shilpa Shetty and Richard Gere to register an FIR, which was granted.
The FIR registered the accused under Sections 292, 293, 294 of the Indian Penal Code (Obscene) and the Information Technology and Women’s Indecent (Prohibition) Act.
Shilpa Shetty’s request to transfer the case to Mumbai was approved by the Supreme Court in 2017, after which the Metropolitan Magistrate at Ballard Quay, Mumbai, heard the complaint and the transfer case.
The actress applied for discharge through defence lawyer Madhukar Dalvi under Section 239 (release after consideration of police report and documents) and 245 (release after consideration of evidence) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Shilpa’s application states that the charges against her “only that she did not protest when she was kissed by co-accused Richard Gere would in no way make her an accomplice or perpetrator of the crime.
Her application under section 239 was granted, while her application under section 245 was denied because release was not provided for in a subpoena-tearable case.
Complete News Source : India Today
