New Delhi, Feb 9 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave film star Govinda two weeks’ time to meet Santosh Bateshwar Ray to tender an apology and settle the dispute over an alleged 2009 slapping incident.
Govinda’s lawyer Sangeeta Kumar told a bench of Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit that the cine star would meet Ray to settle the dispute outside the court as desired by the court.
As the bench told her that her client should settle the issue outside the court, she undertook that he would act as desired by the court.
The court then adjourned the matter by two weeks. It had on November 30, 2015, asked Govinda to settle the dispute with Ray with an apology.
The court gave Govinda two week’s time as counsel Jatin Zaveri appearing for Ray told it that the actor has not complied with the November 30 order, and said that he be given two weeks’ time to comply, failing which the court should hear and decide the matter on its merits.
During the November 30 hearing, the court had told Govinda: “You are a big hero, show your big heart (and apologise and settle the matter).”
The court on Tuesday today again asked Govinda to settle the matter out of the court in the course of the hearing of a petition by Ray who had challenged the Bombay High Court order quashing his complaint holding that there was no material supporting his allegation of criminal intimidation by the veteran star.
The court had on November 30 asked Govinda to tender apology after it viewed video clip of the alleged act of violence. After watching the video clip, the court had told Govinda’s counsel that such acts in public places could not be appreciated.
The matter relates to February 2, 2009, when Ray had lodged a complaint against the veteran star accusing him causing hurt, intentional insult with an intent to provoke breach of the peace and criminal intimidation.
Ray’s complaint before the magistrate’s court was quashed by the high court in 2013. It was against this order of quashing the Ray had moved the apex court.
The high court had observed: “No doubt some incident had occurred. However, there is no material to prove criminal intimidation. It appears that the complainant was instigated to file the complaint after a year.”