Hrithik Roshan, Kangana Ranaut's legal spat might have reached an official conclusion
Kangana Ranaut’s lawyer has issued an official statement on her legal war with Hrithik Roshan, which seems to going around in circles.
March 2016 marked the beginning of one of the biggest controversies in Bollywood for the year.
Kangana Ranaut and Hrithik Roshan had slapped each other with legal notices through their respective attorneys, Rizwan Siddiquee and Deepesh Mehta.
After Kangana made a comment about a 'silly ex' of hers, Hrithik slapped a defamation notice against her that seemed to indicate that (he believed) the comment was directed at him. The fight got murky, and allegations were thrown from both the parties.
As Firstpost had reported earlier, the crux is that an email ID, from which Kangana claimed to have received messages from Hrithik, seem to indicate that they were in a relationship. Hrithik, on the other hand, said he never had an email account with that ID, and that it was an impostor who had been communicating with Kangana
He even tweeted that he would rather have an affair with the Pope. Ouch.
An officer connected with the Cyber Crime Cell has been quoted by various news outlets as saying the emails came from a US server, and in the absence of data from there, no user could be identified, which for Kangana's team was a win-win situation.
More recently, it was in the news that the legal spat has come to an end, when Kangana Ranaut's lawyers claimed that the fake ID case was closed. However, soon after, Hrithik's legal team put out a statement claiming that the legal battle was far from over, and that all energies are being directed towards proving that Roshan and Ranaut had no relationship whatsoever.
Now we have Kangana’s lawyer, Rizwan Siddiquee's final statement post her win over the legal issue as reported by Miss Malini.
The Joint Commissioner of Police has clearly mentioned that his Department has been unable to find anything on the mail ID as the server is located in US. He has also in clear words stated that it is very difficult to ascertain who was using the account. The Department now claims that it is trying to conclude the case from the available evidence.
In clear words the department has thus communicated to the world what to expect from the investigation, and have also spelt out their difficulty in answering the most important question i.e. “Is there really an Imposter. If yes, who is the imposter ? It is therefore obvious that given the situation, Mr. Hrithik Roshan and his team are once again desperately trying to salvage the situation, and in frustration are now making absolutely baseless and ridiculous claims that we are spreading false information to the media, with regards to the findings of the police.
Mr. Hrithik Roshan and his team of forensic experts and lawyers are directly dealing with the police on the subject matter, yet if the police are communicating their helplessness in the said matter, the said decision needs to accepted by the parties concerned. Now without prejudice to the above we would like to state that Mr. Hrithik Roshan had lied to the Police even at the first instance, as much as he had blatantly lied not knowing my client socially. He also cannot deny the fact that he had failed to file any police complaint at the right time against any imposter for reasons, which are now apparent.
I would like to categorically state that my client has always claimed and maintained that there is no imposter and that her email id was hacked by Mr. Hrithik Roshan multiple times during the 7 months which Mr. Roshan took to file a belated and misleading police complaint. A lot can be implied from these acts. As a matter of fact my client has a good criminal case against Mr. Roshan not only for hacking her email id but for also having circulated her private pictures to the media.
Laal Singh Chaddha, shot across 100 locations around the globe, finally wrapped up production in Mumbai.
Sooraj Pancholi was booked for alleged abetment to suicide in the case and is now out on bail.
Kamaal Khan in his plea said a film viewer cannot be prohibited from making comments about a film or its characters.