KRK moves HC seeking dismissal of an FIR over derogatory remarks against Dhanush

File photo


KRK has approached the Bombay High Court to quash a 2017 FIR filed against him at the Bandra Police station. The FIR is over Kamaal R Khan’s alleged remarks about Dhanush on X (formerly Twitter).

In his petition filed through Sana Raees Khan, KRK alleges that the Bandra police station maliciously implicated him under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The section criminalises words, gestures or acts intended to insult a woman’s modesty. KRK labelled the allegations against him false and bogus. He also alleged that the tweet had no connection with a woman.

For the unversed, in 2017, Kamaal R Khan allegedly posted a derogatory post against Dhanush. In his tweet, he questioned how can a woman even allow Dhanush to touch her. The alleged tweet reads, “I can’t understand how can any girl allow this bhanggi dhanushkraja to even touch her Yukki! He is really dirt.” Alongside, he also posted obscene images of Dhanush and his co-star. This stirred the charges of insulting a woman’s modesty. However, in his petition, KRK rebuffs the existence of the said tweet.

The petition also reads, “Even if the allegations are taken at face value for the sake of presumption, the term ‘yukki’ as used in the alleged post, holds no recognised meaning in any language, dialect, or context. In the absence of a clear and universally understood meaning, the term cannot be classified as obscene or as insulting to the modesty of a woman under the Section 509 of the IPC.”

KRK’s advocate states that she filed the petition last year. Defending the petitioner, she said, “The petitioner is an innocent man falsely and maliciously implicated in the present case with no fault on his part.” Moreover, KRK claims that he was unaware of the FIR’s existence for three years. It was only in 2020 that he found out about it. “The FIR was registered in 2017. However, I was only intimated about the said FIR in 2020. Thus, the subject FIR was registered three years prior to the petitioner being informed, which violates principles of natural justice and fairness.”

Also Read: Govinda & Sunita Ahuja’s marriage in trouble? Divorce rumors shake fans