Bombay HC Raps FIR Over ‘Tum Se Tum Tak’, May Order Complainant to Mop Hospital Floors
The Bombay High Court has come down heavily on a complaint filed against Zee TV over its new serial Tum Se Tum Tak, which portrays a romance between a 46-year-old man and a 19-year-old woman. A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad observed that if someone finds a show objectionable, they should simply avoid watching it instead of approaching the police.
The case involves an FIR lodged by Sunil Sharma, who claimed that the storyline “hurt sentiments.” Zee TV moved the court to have the FIR quashed. During Tuesday’s hearing, the bench asked what exactly was offensive in the serial, remarking:
“If we go by your logic, we will have to switch off the TV altogether. A 46-year-old actor falling in love with a 19-year-old girl — will that really hurt sentiments? Unless a show promotes communal disharmony, there is no reason for such action. If you don’t like a movie or show, don’t watch it.”
Doubt Over Complainant’s Identity
The court also pointed out inconsistencies in the complainant’s identity. Initially, Sharma identified himself to the Cyber Cell as “Sunil Sharma.” Later, he said his name was “Sunil Mahendra Sharma.” Official records, however, showed him as “Mahendra Sanjay Sharma.” He had signed documents in three different ways, which the court termed as “mischief played in the court hall.”
The judges further questioned why Sharma did not keep his identity confidential if he feared backlash, adding that the shifting names suggested “vexatious conduct” and “mala fide intent.”
Community Service Proposal
Following a suggestion by Advocate General Dr Birendra Saraf, the bench said it may direct Sharma to perform community service for at least a month — such as cleaning and mopping floors at JJ Hospital. The court stressed that he must personally do the work and not send someone else in his place.
Criticism of Cyber Police
The judges also pulled up the Cyber Cell for registering the FIR without verifying the complainant’s identity or documents. They called the officer’s actions “stupidity” and said:
“Your officer is not a child. He didn’t even think of cross-checking the complainant’s details before filing the complaint. Disciplinary action should be taken as per service rules.”
The court has reserved its order in the matter.
