A sessions court in Bombay today (March 9) rejected two applications filed by Kangana Ranaut, seeking transfer of proceedings between her and writer-lyricist Javed Akhtar from the Andheri metropolitan magistrate in Bombay to another magistrate. Additional sessions judge S.M. Bhosale pronounced the verdict in the two applications filed by the actress. While one application sought transfer of the defamation complaint filed by Akhtar against Kangana, the second application prayed for transfer of her cross-complaint against Javed Akhtar alleging extortion.
The actress had approached the chief metropolitan magistrate at Esplanade, seeking transfer of both the complaints from the court of metropolitan magistrate R.R. Khan to any other metropolitan magistrate. The Esplanade magistrate had rejected both the transfer applications. After that, Kangana Ranaut moved the sessions court at Dindoshi (Andheri, Bombay), invoking the exclusive jurisdiction under section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She claimed in her plea that the Andheri magistrate grossly misused his power to intentionally cause her injury, by callously announcing in an open court that an arrest warrant would be issued against her if she did not remain present in court on the next date. The actress reasoned that had the magistrate been inclined to issue a warrant, he should have done so by passing a proper order recording his reasons for doing so. Her plea underlined that such unwarranted loose remarks in an open court in a bailable, non-cognisable, compoundable and summons triable matter prima facie indicated the prejudice of the magistrate and his visible bias.
Javed Akhtar’s advocate, Jay K. Bharadwaj, stated that Kangana had unsuccessfully challenged the process followed by Andheri magistrate R.R. Khan on five occasions, and the present application was her sixth. He contended that the Andheri magistrate had allowed seven of her applications seeking exemption from appearing personally. He added that in all, Ranaut had not been present on 12 dates when the matter was listed and her presence was called for the limited purpose of recording her plea for framing of charges under the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to Bharadwaj, the actress had been trying to delay the proceedings because of which her plea could not be recorded.