Case against filmmaker Renjith: Was delay in taking cognisance condoned, asks HC

Kochi: High court has sought a report from the trial court on whether any order was issued condoning the delay in taking cognisance of the offence after the expiry of the limitation period in a case against Malayalam filmmaker Renjith Balakrishnan, alleging that he outraged the modesty of a Bengali actor in 2009. The bench of Justice G Gireesh directed the high court registry to call for a report from the additional chief judicial magistrate court, Ernakulam, on the matter in response to the petition filed by Renjith seeking to quash the case and the further proceedings against him. The court also extended its interim order dispensing with his appearance before the trial court till Oct 27 and adjourned the petition to that date. In Aug 2024, the actor raised serious allegations against Renjith against the backdrop of the release of a substantial portion of the Justice K Hema Committee report on the working conditions of women in the film industry. In her petition, she alleged that in 2009, Renjith invited her to act in the movie ‘Palerimanickyam: Oru Pathirakolapathakathinte Katha' and, during a discussion about the film at a flat in Kochi, he misbehaved with her. Based on her petition, the Ernakulam North police registered a case under Sections 354 (assault or use of criminal force with intent to outrage a woman's modesty) and 509 (words, gestures or acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the IPC against Renjith. The ACJM court later took cognisance of the case, which he challenged before the HC. Renjith argued that since the maximum punishment under Section 354 IPC is two years' imprisonment, the limitation period is three years, and under Section 509 IPC, the limitation period is one year. Therefore, the decision to take cognisance of the case after 15 years was detrimental to the interests of justice.