Shah Rukh Khan gets clean chit in Wankhede Stadium brawl case

The Mumbai police have given a clean chit to Shah Rukh Khan saying that he was not drunk and had not used indecent language, during a brawl after an IPL match at Mumbai’s Wankhede Stadium in 2012.

“After the investigation, it was found that no cognisable offence had taken place,” said the police report filed in a metropolitan magistrate’s court recently.

Complainant Amit Maru, who claims to be a social worker, had filed a complaint in the court seeking action against Shah Rukh for abusing a security guard at the stadium and using foul language in presence of children, ‘causing them mental suffering’

Following the complaint, Shah Rukh was banned from entering the Wankhede stadium for five years, which was lifted last year.

During the investigations, police recorded Shah Rukh’s statement, who denied the allegations. He said that after his team Kolkata Knight Riders won the match that day, his children and their friends entered the ground and the security guard Vikas Dalvi asked them to leave. He only told the guard that the children were with him and nobody should touch them. He later said that he was upset when he saw the guard manhandle his daughter and reacted the way any father would have.

The actor also said that the abusive language heard in the footage played on internet and TV was not his. Police also gathered statements of other witnesses, including his own kids Aryan and Suhana, and the security guard Vikas, who admitted that there was a tiff between Shah Rukh and the guards but no foul language was used. Hence, the police did not find any evidence to book charges against the star, as per a report in The Times of India.  

Advocate Aditya Singh, representing a petitioner Amit Maru told the daily that they will file a protest petition against this report.

“We will file a protest petition before metropolitan magistrate R M Jadhav against the report. The police submitted a report with an alternative version of the event. What Khan said in the audio is a matter of evidence to be taken in court and not an inquiry. The inquiry was to determine if there was sufficient material to proceed or not, not to determine innocence or guilt of the accused,” he said.