Nana Patekar became one of the central figures of India’s 2018 #MeToo conversation after actress Tanushree Dutta accused him of sexually harassing her during the shooting of Horn ‘Ok’ Pleassss in 2008. Patekar denied the allegations. A police investigation later resulted in a B-summary report saying there was insufficient evidence, while Dutta challenged the findings. Let's delve into the controversy.
What happened in 2008?
Actress Tanushree Dutta alleged that actor Nana Patekar had harassed her on the sets of the film Horn ‘Ok’ Pleassss during a song shoot, claiming he behaved inappropriately and insisted on an intimate dance step despite her objections.
Dutta alleged that the arrangement changed during the shoot and that Patekar began participating more extensively in the sequence. She later accused him of touching her inappropriately while allegedly teaching her dance steps. She also said she objected to the behaviour and subsequently left the set.
How did the case return in 2018?
Trending Stories
Ten years later, Tanushree Dutta publicly spoke about the incident in interviews, bringing the allegations back into the spotlight. Her statements came at a time when the global #MeToo movement was prompting women to speak publicly about alleged sexual harassment and abuse in workplaces.
Dutta's allegations against Patekar quickly became one of the defining early controversies of India's #MeToo moment. She also alleged that people within the film industry had known about what happened but had failed to support her. Patekar rejected the allegations. At the time, he said that what Dutta had alleged was untrue and indicated that he had already addressed the matter years earlier.
In October 2018, Dutta filed a written complaint with Mumbai Police against Patekar and others, including choreographer Ganesh Acharya, director Rakesh Sarang and producer Sami Siddiqui. An FIR was subsequently registered under sections 354 and 509 of the IPC at Oshiwara police station in connection with the allegations.
What was the police's conclusion in Nana Patekar-Tanushree Dutta's controversy?
In June 2019, Mumbai Police filed a B-summary report asking the magistrate court to close the case. The report said investigators had found no evidence to substantiate Dutta's allegations and characterised the complaint as false.
Tanushree Dutta strongly disputed the police findings. She questioned the investigation, saying some witnesses had not been heard and alleging that witnesses had been intimidated. She said she intended to oppose the police report. Importantly, a police closure report is not the same as a court finding that an alleged incident did or did not happen.
What happened to the case in 2025?
The legal dispute between Nana Patekar and Tanushree Dutta once again grabbed the attention of the public in March 2025 after an Andheri magistrate court disposed of Dutta's complaint after considering the delay between the alleged 2008 incident and the 2018 FIR.
The court noted that the relevant offences carried a limitation period and that Dutta had not filed an application seeking condonation of the delay. Because of this, the magistrate said the court could not take cognisance of the allegations. The order therefore did not decide the factual merits of whether Dutta's allegations were true or false.
The court also said it could not deal with the police's B-summary report in the circumstances. Dutta challenged the outcome, while Patekar's lawyer described the order as relief for the actor. She raised further allegations regarding subsequent harassment, tampered vehicles and digital privacy breaches.

&imwidth=800&imheight=600&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&im=FitAndFill=(700,400)&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)
&imwidth=180&imheight=135&format=webp&quality=medium)