Kerala High Court quashes sexual harassment case by Bengali actress against filmmaker Ranjith

The Kerala High Court on Monday quashed a sexual harassment case filed on a complaint by a Bengali actress against Malayalam film director Ranjith Balakrishnan, after noting that the trial court was legally barred from taking cognisance of the case due to a delay in filing the complaint [Ranjith Balakrishnan v State of Kerala].

Justice C Pratheep Kumar noted that the alleged offences against Ranjith were under Sections 354 (outraging the modesty of a woman) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which carried a maximum punishment of two years.

He further pointed out that under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), cognizance of such offences (which are punishable with imprisonment between 1-3 years) cannot be taken beyond three years from the date of the alleged offence.

Therefore, the High Court ruled that the trial court could not take cognisance of the case against Ranjith either, since the complaint in this case was filed 15 years after the alleged incident.

"Since the maximum punishment provided for the offence under Section 364and 509 IPC as on the date of the offence was only two years and as per Section 468 CrPC, the period of limitation was only 3 years from the date of commission of offence. The learned Magistrate was not justified in taking cognizance to the offence after a period of more than 15 years. In the above circumstance, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed by invoking the power under Section 528 of BNSS. In the result, this criminal MC is allowed and further proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance to crime ... stands quashed," the Court's order said.

The complaint quashed today was filed against Ranjith in 2024, shortly after the Justice Hema Committee Report revealed widespread sexual abuse and discrimination against women in cinema.

The complainant claimed that Ranjith had invited her to his apartment in 2009 on the pretext of discussing a film project and then attempted to touch her inappropriately with sexual intent.

Based on her complaint, the police registered a First Information Report (FIR) against the filmmaker under Sections 354 and 509 of the IPC.

Subsequently, an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, took cognizance of the matter and criminal proceedings were initiated against him.

Ranjith, however, approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings, terming the complaint as false and motivated.

His counsel also argued that the complaint was filed in 2024, well beyond the limitation period, making the proceedings time barred.

He emphasised that the delay of 15 years in filing the complaint violated the limitation period prescribed under Section 468, CrPC.

Finding merit in this submission, the Court today has quashed the criminal proceedings against the filmmaker.

The quash petition has been moved by advocates Santheep Ankarath and Sherry MV.

Earlier, the Court had closed Ranjith's anticipatory bail plea in relation to this case after the prosecution clarified that since the alleged offence occurred in 2009, when Section 354 IPC was bailable, police could release him without court approval.

The filmmaker had earlier also faced another case in Karnataka, where an aspiring male actor accused Ranjith of engaging in unnatural sex with him (complainant) in 2012 at the Taj Hotel near Bengaluru International Airport.

Ranjith denied the allegations, adding that the Taj Hotel opened only in 2016, four years after the alleged event. This discrepancy was noted by the Karnataka High Court while granting him bail. In July this year, the Karnataka High Court quashed this case as well.