Rakhi Sawant Moves HC to Quash Defamation Case: ‘A Woman Can’t Be Booked for...’

Terming it a “publicity stunt”, actor Rakhi Sawant has moved the Bombay High Court (HC), seeking the quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) and charge sheet filed against her for allegedly defaming a model.

The defamation proceedings and the FIR were filed on October 18, after Sawant allegedly showed the complainant’s videos in public and reportedly made defamatory remarks against her. Sawant was booked under Sections 354(A) (outraging modesty of a woman), 500 (defamation), 504 (criminal intimidation), 509 (intent of provoking breach) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with Section 67(A) of the Information and Technology Act (IT Act).

Sawant’s plea specifically stated that Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), for outraging the modesty of a woman, can’t be evoked against her as such charges can only be pressed against a man.

Sawant has alleged that the FIR was filed to frame her in a false case. “It is submitted that the aforesaid FIR has been filed by the informant in an attempt to harass the petitioner herein and to frame her in a false and a bogus case and is a publicity stunt used to gain notoriety and fame, by berating and attacking the reputation and modesty of the Petitioner. That the present FIR is mala fide and is motivated with fraudulent intentions and has been registered by the informant with ulterior and revengeful motives to harass the Petitioner and pressurize her,” the plea reads.

In her plea, Sawant has also stated that a careful perusal of the FIR indicates that no confidence can be generated on its genuineness. “The petitioner states that without going into the merits of the matter, a careful perusal of the FIR by itself indicates that no confidence can be generated in respect of the genuineness of the said FIR…”

Sawant also stated that the dispute was resolved amicably. “…In any case, as the Petitioner and the Respondent no.2 have amicably resolved all the disputes however pendency of the present F.I.R is nothing but just a tactic played by the respondent no.2 to waste the precious time of the court and also to be highlighted in the media,” the plea stated.