Bollywood legendary lyricist Javed Akhtar and actor Kangana Ranaut’s fight that started during Hrithik Roshan and Kangana’s case is still going on. After which the court has now summoned Akhtar. Actually, Kangana had filed a complaint against Javed Akhtar after which he got summoned under sections 506 (criminal intimidation) and 509 (insulting the dignity of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code and is asked to appear in the court on August 5.
The court stated in its summons that there was no evidence of extortion against the lyricist. Asking someone to write an apology will not be considered “valuable security” as that term is defined in section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
“…the complainant (Ranaut) even though levelled charges for offences punishable under section 383, 384 and 387 of IPC for committing extortion and putting a person in fear of death or of grievous hurt in order to commit extortion, it appears that no case is made out against the accused for the aforesaid offences…” a statement from the court quoted as saying by Hindustan Times.
How did it start?
Akhtar launched a lawsuit against Kangana Ranaut in 2020, alleging that she made false allegations about him in a televised interview that hurt his reputation. Later, Kangana Ranaut accusing Javed Akhtar of “extortion and criminal intimidation” filed a counter-complaint in the same court.
The actor claimed in her lawsuit against Akhtar that he called her and her sister Rangoli Chandel to his home after she had a public argument with her co-star, calling them there with “malafide intentions and ulterior motives, and then criminally intimidating and threatening” her.
“As far as other offences levelled against the accused are concerned, on the basis of averments in the complaint, verification of the complainant and statement of her (Kangana’s) sister Rangoli Chandel,” the court said. “I have come to the conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused for offence under IPC section 506 (criminal intimidation) and 509 (gestures or acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman),” the court added.