A Mumbai sessions court has imposed a token fine of Rs 100 on cricketer Prithvi Shaw for failing to submit his reply in a molestation case filed by social media influencer Sapna Gill. The court, which had issued multiple requests for Shaw to respond, granted him one final opportunity to file his reply before the next hearing, which is scheduled for December 16.
The case originates from an incident at an Andheri pub in Mumbai on February 15, 2023. Gill's criminal revision petition challenges a magistrate court's earlier decision not to register a First Information Report (FIR) against Shaw. Despite the sessions court issuing a final warning in a previous hearing, Shaw's legal team did not submit a response by Tuesday's deadline. The judge, S. M. Agarkar, stated, "Still, one more chance is granted for a cost of Rs 100," before adjourning the matter.
Gill's attorney, Advocate Ali Kaashif Khan, expressed frustration with Shaw's conduct, accusing him of deliberately delaying the case. "This has been his regular way of handling the case despite being summoned many times," Khan said, highlighting a pattern of seeking adjournments.
The police's version of the events differs significantly from Gill's. According to police reports, an argument broke out after Gill's friend Shobit Thakur repeatedly requested selfies with Shaw, who then declined. The situation escalated outside the pub, where a group, including Gill and Thakur, allegedly chased Shaw and his friend, Ashish Surendra Yadav, and demanded money. Gill was arrested in connection with the incident in February 2023 and was later released on bail.
However, Gill's complaint alleges a different sequence of events. She claims that after she and her friend were invited to Shaw's VIP table, an argument over selfies led to Shaw and Yadav assaulting her friend. Gill's complaint accuses Shaw of physical and sexual assault when she intervened. After the magistrate court initially refused to register an FIR and instead ordered a police inquiry, Gill moved the sessions court with a criminal revision petition, arguing that the magistrate's decision was "erroneous" and failed to protect victims of assault.
