Tributes meet a pushback
Nana Patekar’s death on 8 October at 75 brought a wave of craft-first tributes. Within days, the conversation shifted. Singer Chinmayi Sripaada wrote on X that people praising him “need to acknowledge he had molested and it was NOT a one-time behaviour.”
She was reposting Sona Mohapatra, who had shared screenshots of an assistant director describing alleged on-set misconduct. The AD said the behaviour was “cleverly done hidden behind the garb of acting in a scene” and had been seen on two films other than Horn ‘Ok’ Pleassss.
Tanushree Dutta, whose allegation is at the centre, had drawn flak for an “evil dead” remark after the actor’s death. Sona Mohapatra backed her, and Chinmayi’s post extended that support.
The legal record
The claim dates back to the 2009 film Horn ‘Ok’ Pleassss, where Tanushree Dutta accused Nana Patekar of sexual harassment. It became public in 2018 during the Me Too movement. An FIR was registered, and Nana Patekar denied the allegations.
The case was closed in 2019 for lack of sufficient evidence. In 2025 the Mumbai Andheri Magistrate Court dismissed the criminal proceedings because the complaint was filed beyond the legal limitation period. That is a procedural ending, not a finding on the allegation itself.
Why the pushback matters
This is the line Sona Mohapatra drew: “Talent isn’t innocence. Charity isn’t character. Death isn’t sainthood.” The point is not to relitigate a closed case. It is to ask whether a public tribute should carry the full record.
The timeline matters for a celebrity-watching audience that often sees only the memorial posts:
- 2009: The alleged incident is said to have occurred on the set of Horn ‘Ok’ Pleassss.
- 2018: Tanushree Dutta’s account becomes public; an FIR is registered.
- 2019: The case is closed for lack of sufficient evidence.
- 2025: Proceedings are dismissed because the filing missed the limitation period.
None of those court outcomes proves or disproves the allegation; they record how the legal system handled it.
What the statements ask of viewers
Chinmayi’s message is specific: if you are going to praise Nana Patekar, acknowledge the allegation. Sona’s post asks how many witnesses would satisfy the doubters. The assistant director’s comment alleges that predatory behaviour “still happens.” That is a claim about the industry, not just one actor.
For readers, the takeaway is not to pick a side on command. It is to stay precise. A tribute can honour the performances while still noting that the public record includes a serious allegation and a case that ended on a technicality.
Source: Hindustan Times
Comments