Tanushree Dutta Faces Backlash Over Nana Patekar Death Reports as Disputed Case Returns to Focus

Controversial remarks revive a dispute dating to 2008

Tanushree Dutta's reaction to reports of Nana Patekar's death has reopened a dispute that began with an alleged incident on a film set in March 2008, led to a police complaint in October 2018 and reached another legal decision on March 7, 2025. Her use of the words "evil dead" drew condemnation from the All Indian Cine Workers Association (AICWA), while actor Sandhya Mridul publicly defended the right of survivors to describe their experiences.

Several reports place Patekar's death in Goa on October 8, 2026, and give his age as 75. However, no official confirmation establishing his death, its date or its medical cause accompanies those accounts. The death reports and subsequent reactions therefore require that qualification. Accounts also differ on whether the reported medical cause was a heart attack or cardiac arrest, terms that describe different conditions.

Dutta initially said she was travelling to Lucknow for an event and wanted time to decide how to respond. She offered condolences to the family, then defended her language in later statements describing alleged intimidation, damage to her car's brakes and lasting distress after she spoke publicly in 2018.

Patekar consistently denied her sexual harassment allegations. Mumbai Police sought to close the case in 2019. A later court decision concerned the legal deadline for taking up the alleged 2008 offence, rather than a determination that the incident was true or false. That distinction matters as renewed public arguments mix the allegations, the police findings and the court's procedural ruling.

What Dutta said before her Lucknow event

In an Instagram Stories video, Dutta described learning of the reported death while preparing for a work commitment. Her initial response combined a request for time, concern about media attention and condolences.

Dutta, the actor whose 2018 allegations helped India's #MeToo movement gain momentum, said:

Maine suna hai. I have heard the news. I just… today is my work day. I am going to Lucknow for an event and I want to focus on that.

She said she had planned a major event and intended to post content throughout the day. The phrase that triggered the controversy appeared when she described what she expected journalists to focus on that evening.

Explaining why she was postponing a fuller response, Dutta added:

I will give my reaction once I figure out what kind of reaction I should have.

She also said, "Definitely condolences to the family." At the Lucknow event, she reportedly maintained that she had no reaction to give and wanted to concentrate on making the event a success. Her later statements were more direct, defending the phrase "evil dead" as an expression of her own experience rather than withdrawing it.

Her later allegations of intimidation

Dutta said the public response to her remarks ignored what she described as years of hardship after #MeToo. She alleged that men followed her, that she faced pressure and inducements to abandon her case, and that threats to her safety continued after 2020.

In one account, she specifically dated alleged damage to her car's brakes to 2024. Other accounts describe the brakes as cut, damaged or removed. Those descriptions cannot establish precisely what happened, and no police finding or independent verification of the alleged interference is identified.

Describing the incident in an Instagram video, Dutta said:

In 2024, someone cut the brakes of my car. The goons used to follow me everywhere after the #MeToo movement.

She also mentioned an accident and food poisoning. These are her allegations, not established evidence that Patekar or any other named person caused those events. The distinction is especially necessary because she connected her distress to him and to what she described as a larger group.

Dutta said she had considered leaving Mumbai for a temple town because she did not feel safe. Her descriptions of the duration vary, referring at different points to the last five years, five to seven years, and hardship since 2018, especially after 2020. They do not provide a consistent dated account of every alleged incident.

Why she refused calls to forgive

Dutta said some people urged her to forgive Patekar following the death reports. She rejected that request on the grounds that, according to her, he had never apologised or acknowledged wrongdoing.

Her argument was that public mourning could not erase her account of what happened or the distress she said followed. Patekar's position remained different: he denied the original allegations. In a later interview, he said the incident she described "had not happened."

Defending her choice of words, Dutta said:

So when I say evil is dead, I mean it because for me, that was my reality. This guy troubled me even in death.

A separate Instagram message reportedly stated that her life was "hopefully on track for better things" after using the same phrase. Her statements express her personal accusations and feelings. They do not establish criminal responsibility, and the legal proceedings did not result in a conviction.

AICWA condemns the remarks as Mridul supports survivors

AICWA president Suresh Shyamlal Gupta condemned Dutta's language and invoked Patekar's public service and charitable work. He referred to the actor's Padma Shri, his service during the Kargil War and the Naam Foundation's support for farmers' families.

Addressing Dutta's use of the phrase, Gupta said:

At such a time, Tanushree Dutta's statement on social media, in which she used the words 'evil dead,' is deeply objectionable, insensitive and shameful. AICWA strongly condemns it.

Another account identifies the president as Suresh Shyamlal and quotes him describing the comments as an attempt at "cheap publicity." The association's response focused on the language used after a reported death, not a new investigation of the underlying allegations.

Actor Sandhya Mridul took a different position in an Instagram post and Stories. She did not name Dutta or Patekar, so her statements should not be treated as a direct factual judgment on their case.

Expressing support for survivors, Mridul wrote:

A survivor lives with it for as long as they live. I will always stand with the survivor.

She also argued that mourning someone and recognising another person's pain connected to them can coexist. The contrasting responses expose the central disagreement: whether the conventions of public mourning should limit what an accuser says about unresolved experiences.

What happened on the film set and afterward

The original allegation concerned a song being filmed for Horn 'Ok' Pleasss. Dutta said Patekar insisted on adding inappropriate and intimate dance steps despite her objections. The film is commonly identified as a 2009 release, while the alleged incident occurred during filming in 2008.

The later court account dates the alleged incident to March 23, 2008. One report instead places Dutta's initial allegation in October 2008, while another describes the song shoot as occurring in 2009. Those accounts differ from the March 2008 date used in the court proceedings and should not be combined into a single supposedly settled chronology.

Dutta reportedly complained to the Cine and TV Artistes Association in 2008. One account says no action followed because the matter was considered criminal. She was later replaced in the film. In 2018, she renewed the allegations publicly and filed a police complaint naming Patekar, choreographer Ganesh Acharya, director Rakesh Sarang and producer Samee Siddiqui.

Patekar denied the accusations and reportedly sent Dutta a legal notice. On October 13, 2018, her advocate, Nitin Satpute, submitted an application to Oshiwara police seeking narco analysis, brain mapping and lie detector tests for the four men. The application shows what her lawyer requested, not that the tests were approved, performed or produced evidence.

Why the 2019 police report remained disputed

Mumbai Police filed a summary report seeking closure in the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court in Andheri in 2019. Some accounts describe this as a "clean chit" based on insufficient evidence. Later descriptions say the police classified the complaint as false or malicious in a B summary report.

Those descriptions are not interchangeable. A finding that investigators lacked enough evidence to prosecute is different from an allegation that a complaint was deliberately false. Neither should be presented as a trial verdict.

An Oshiwara police officer explained the evidentiary difficulties at the time:

We have not found any conclusive evidence against any of the accused named in the FIR. We had summoned several witnesses for inquiries in connection with the incident, and while some of them said they were unable to recollect the details of the incident due to the time lapse, others never turned up.

Satpute challenged the investigation, alleging that some witness statements had not been recorded and others were incomplete. He said Dutta would oppose the closure report and seek relief in the Bombay High Court. That statement announced an intention; it does not establish the outcome of any High Court proceeding.

Dutta filed a protest petition on December 5, 2019, seeking further investigation and legal action. A protest petition allows a complainant to challenge a police recommendation to close a case before the magistrate.

The 2025 ruling was about a legal deadline

On March 7, 2025, Judicial Magistrate First Class N. V. Bansal in Andheri refused to take cognisance of the alleged 2008 incident. Taking cognisance means a court formally takes up an alleged offence for judicial consideration.

The magistrate applied Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which sets deadlines for taking up certain offences according to their possible punishment. The court account identifies Indian Penal Code Sections 354 and 509 and a three year limitation period. Another account explains that Section 354 carried a maximum two year sentence before its 2013 amendment.

The FIR was registered in October 2018, more than ten years after the alleged March 2008 incident. The court noted that neither the prosecution nor Dutta had filed an application asking it to excuse the delay and explaining sufficient reasons for doing so.

The most consequential distinction appears in the magistrate's reported wording:

"The alleged first incidence cannot be said to be false nor can be said as true".

The court said it had not examined the facts of that alleged incident. It disposed of the B summary report because the legal bar prevented it from taking cognisance. A separate account also describes dismissal under Section 203, finding no grounds to proceed over an allegedly derogatory television remark in 2018 because evidence of intent was lacking.

The result ended those proceedings, but it should not be described as a judicial finding that the alleged 2008 harassment either occurred or was fabricated.

The later post, death reports and unresolved details

A subsequent Instagram post attributed to Dutta described her devotion to Mahakal Baba and claimed that her faith protected her from attacks. She also alleged harmful rituals by Patekar and others. These assertions concern her beliefs and accusations; there is no independently verified basis here for presenting supernatural harm as fact.

The same post expressed doubts about the authenticity of the death reports and included concerning statements suggesting she did not want to continue living if her circumstances persisted. Those statements warrant care rather than sensational repetition. They do not establish a clinical diagnosis or verify her allegations.

Separately, Patekar's son Malhar reportedly explained that funeral arrangements took longer because transporting the body from Goa to the family's Pune farmhouse required time. Reports describe the funeral as taking place late on Thursday, but an official funeral announcement or medical statement is not identified.

Accounts variously describe the reported cause as a heart attack and cardiac arrest. A heart attack involves blocked blood flow to heart muscle; cardiac arrest means the heart stops pumping effectively. One can lead to the other, but without medical confirmation they should not be treated as identical findings.

Patekar's public reputation also included a long acting career and rural philanthropy. He established the Naam Foundation with actor Makarand Anaspure in 2015. His film work ranged from Ankush and Krantiveer to Welcome and the Marathi drama Natsamrat. Those achievements explain part of the mourning described in the reports, but they do not resolve the disputed allegations.

A timeline of the case and reported reactions

The chronology separates the alleged incident, the investigation and the later reactions. It also shows why describing the case simply as closed in 2019 leaves out Dutta's subsequent challenge.

• March 23, 2008: The alleged film set incident, as dated in the later court account.
• October 2018: Dutta registered an FIR naming Patekar and three others.
• October 13, 2018: Advocate Nitin Satpute requested investigative tests for the four accused.
• June 2019: Police reportedly sought closure after finding no incriminating evidence.
• December 5, 2019: Dutta filed a protest petition seeking further investigation.
• March 7, 2025: The Andheri magistrate refused to take cognisance of the alleged 2008 offence because of the limitation period.
• October 8, 2026: Several reports date Patekar's death and Dutta's initial reaction to this day, without an accompanying official confirmation.

No next hearing, appeal deadline or new investigative decision is identified. Verification of the death reports, the precise medical cause and Dutta's later safety allegations remains separate from the documented procedural history of the harassment complaint.

Key Points

• Dutta initially offered condolences and said she wanted to focus on a Lucknow event before giving a fuller reaction.
• She later defended her "evil dead" remark and alleged years of intimidation and distress.
• AICWA condemned her language; Sandhya Mridul supported survivors without naming either actor.
• Patekar denied the sexual harassment allegations, and police sought closure in 2019.
• The 2025 court decision applied a legal limitation period and did not decide whether the alleged 2008 incident was true or false.
• The reported death date, medical cause and later allegations lack accompanying official confirmation or independent verification.