'Raees' promotion: HC stays criminal proceedings against SRK

Image
Press Trust of India Ahmedabad
Last Updated : Jul 20 2017 | 5:07 PM IST
The Gujarat High Court today put an interim stay on criminal proceedings against superstar Shah Rukh Khan for his alleged culpability in triggering a melee at Vadodara railway station early this year while promoting his film 'Raees,' during which a man had died of heart attack.
The superstar was granted the relief by a bench of Chief Justice R Subhash Reddy and Justice V M Pancholi, which also stayed the Vadodara court summons to him, seeking his presence before it on July 23 to answer the charges of his culpability in the case.
Khan's lawyer appraised the court of the case and pleaded that he was not responsible for the ruckus that was created at the Vadodara railway station on January 23 upon the arrival of the August Kranti Express on which he was travelling to promote the movie.
After granting an interim stay on proceedings against Khan, the high court fixed September 25 as the next date to hear his plea.
The ruckus at platform had left one Fahreed Khan Pathan. a Vadodara resident dead and several others injured, besides causing damages to the railway property.
A Vadodara court had issued summons to Khan last week on the plea of a local resident Jitendra Solanki seeking its direction to the police to lodge an FIR against the superstar.
Solanki had earlier approached the police for lodging of an FIR against Khan under sections 336, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, for allegedly committing acts endangering life or personal safety of others and causing simple and grievous hurts to them by such acts, but the police had refused to lodge FIR on his complaint.
The Vadodara court had issued summons to Khan under section 204 of the CrPC saying that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against him in the case.
The high court had earlier stayed another summons issued to Khan by the Government Railway Police in connection with the same case.
The GRP had asked him to come its office and record his statement.
The lawyer for the actor had then argued that such summons could not be issued against a person who was not staying within the jurisdiction of the police station.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Jul 20 2017 | 5:07 PM IST

Next Story