Kangana Ranaut v. Javed Akhtar: Mumbai Court rejects Ranaut's plea seeking transfer of proceedings

A Sessions Court in Mumbai on Wednesday rejected two applications filed by Bollywood actress Kangana Ranaut seeking transfer of proceedings between her and lyricist Javed Akhtar from the Andheri Magistrate to another Magistrate..Additional Sessions Judge SM Bhosale pronounced the verdict today in the two applications filed by Ranaut.One application had sought transfer of defamation complaint filed by Akhtar against Ranaut while a second application prayed for transfer of her cross complaint against Akhtar alleging extortion."Mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done in the given case, alone does not suffice. In absence of any material demonstrating the apprehension that justice will not be done, without any bias, such application for transfer cannot be entertained. Therefore while assurances of fair trial needs to be respected, plea for transfer of case should not be entertained on mere apprehension", the order stated. .Ranaut had approached the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Esplanade seeking transfer of both complaints from the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate RR Khan to any other Metropolitan Magistrate.The Esplanade Magistrate rejected both transfer applications..After this, Ranaut moved the Sessions Court at Dindoshi invoking the exclusive jurisdiction under section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She claimed in her plea that the Andheri Magistrate grossly misused her power to intentionally cause her injury.Ranaut stated that the Andheri Magistrate harmed her image by callously announcing in an open court before media personnel that an arrest warrant will be issued against her if she does not remain present in court on the next date. .She stated that had the Magistrate been inclined to issue a warrant then he should have issued the warrant by passing a proper order recording his reasons for doing so.Such unwarranted loose remarks in an open court in a "bailable, non-cognizable, compoundable and summons triable matter" prima facie indicated the prejudice of the Magistrate and his visible bias, her plea through Advocate Rizwan Siddique stated. .The plea also pointed out that the Esplanade CMM ST Dande had called for remarks from the Andheri Magistrate on Ranaut's plea however the same was never placed on record on the ground that it was confidential.Ranaut contended that such remarks do not come under the ambit of confidential information or privileged information since the same not only affect the legitimate rights of Ranaut but also the manner of adjudication of the case..Akhtar stated through his Advocate Jay K Bharadwaj that Ranaut had “unsuccessfully challenged the process followed by Magistrate Khan on five occasions and the present application was her sixth challenge to the process”.He contended that the Andheri Magistrate had allowed seven of her applications seeking exemptions from appearing personally. 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 charge under the Code of Criminal Procedure. He alleged that Ranaut had been trying to delay the proceedings because of which her plea could not be recorded. Read a timeline of the legal battle between the two celebrities here..[Read order]