STOCK MARKET BSE NSE

Case against Jean Paul Lal, 3 others for lewd remarks at actor

 The city police have registered a case against film director Jean Paul Lal, actor Sreenath Bhasi and two others for passing lewd remarks at a junior female actor who worked in the recently released m

Published: 26th July 2017 09:22 AM  |   Last Updated: 26th July 2017 09:22 AM   |  A+A-

By Express News Service

KOCHI: The city police have registered a case against film director Jean Paul Lal, actor Sreenath Bhasi and two others for passing lewd remarks at a junior female actor who worked in the recently released movie ‘Honey Bee 2.’  The other two accused in the case are Anoop and Anirudh, who were associated with the movie. 

Police said the actor lodged a complaint with City Police Commissioner M P Dinesh saying the promised remuneration of Rs 50,000 was not paid to her and the accused passed lewd remarks at her. The complaint was handed over to the Panangad police after recording the statements of the complainant. A case has been registered against the accused under sections 420 (cheating) and 354 (attempting to outrage the modesty of a woman) of the IPC. As per the complaint, the incident occurred on November 2016 during the shooting of ‘Honey Bee 2.’

“The actor had gone to a hotel to meet the director to ask for her remuneration of Rs 50,000 for acting in the movie. He, however made some scathing remarks at her in the presence of the other accused”, police said.Jean Paul Lal is the son of actor-director Lal. He made his directorial debut with ‘Honey Bee’ in 2013. The second part of the movie  hit the screens earlier this year. 

Reacting to the incident, director Lal said the actor is trying to cash in on the recent negative sentiments in the Malayalam film industry. “She’s fishing in troubled waters,” he said, adding the remuneration was not paid as she did not complete her role. The scene was later completed with another actor, he said. She had just one scene in the movie, Lal said.

Police said the actor had come up with the complaint two days ago, following which the cops held discussions with both the parties. While the accused were willing to pay up to Rs 1 lakh to settle the issue, the complainant was not ready to accept it. She stuck to her demand to get a compensation of `10 lakh, they said. 

However, Justice Muralidharan, in his order, said any person or institution who has difficulty in singing or playing the song should not be compelled or forced to sing it, “provided there are valid reasons for not doing so.” But the order did not elaborate on what “valid reasons” are and who can enforce them.
While the rulings of the high courts generally apply across the country, Tuesday’s order directed that the judgement copy be marked only to the chief secretary of Tamil Nadu.

The court also ordered the state’s director of public information to upload and circulate the translated version of “Vande Matharam” in Tamil and English thereby making it available in the Government websites. The order did not direct translation of the song to any other languages.
Only in February, a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra said that there was no concept of national song in the Constitution.

“The Article (in the Constitution) does not refer to National Song. It only refers to National Flag and National Anthem. Therefore, we do not intend to enter into any debate as far as the National Song is concerned,” said the bench, when hearing a petition on national song.
The hearing in the Supreme Court on the issue is still pending when the Madras High Court’s order on Tuesday declared “Vande Matharam” as the national song and ordered playing and singing of the song periodically in all institutions.

The original case the court was hearing was a petition filed by one K Veeramani on what he wrote during the Tamil Nadu’s Teachers Eligibility Test. His plea was that the exam had a question which asked the language the song “Vante Mataram” was written in first. Veeramani had answered that it was in Bengali, which is correct as per the Bachelor of Education text-book.
But he was denied mark for the answer and aggrieved by this he filed the petition.



Comments

Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress.com editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on newindianexpress.com are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of newindianexpress.com or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. newindianexpress.com reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

IPL_2020
flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp