Application filed against Indian film Dhurandhar in Karachi court for defaming PPP
An application was filed in a district court in Karachi on Friday seeking the registration of a case against the director, producer and other crew members of Indian movie Dhurandhar for defaming the PPP.
The applicant maintained that the PPP was also portrayed as sympathetic to terrorists in the trailer of the movie and Lyari was labeled as a “terrorist war zone” while images of the former PPP chairperson and party flag were also unauthorisedly used in the film.
Citing the director, producer, actors and other crew members of Indian movie Dhurandhar as proposed accused and relevant police officials as respondents, applicant Mohammad Amir filed an application under Section 22-A & B of the Criminal Procedure Code before the District and Sessions Court (South) and submitted that he was a worker of the PPP.
The applicant said he was present at a café on December 10, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Darakhshan police station and viewed the official trailer and promotional material of the film on social media.
He also argued that the images of the late former prime minister Benazir Bhutto along with party’s flag and rally visuals were used in the movie without any legal permission while the party was portrayed as being sympathetic to terrorists, which was false and fabricated and designed to create hatred hostility towards the PPP, its leadership and supporters.
He asserted that Karachi, specifically Lyari, was labeled a “terrorist war zone” in the film, which he argued was provocative, misleading and harmful misrepresentation damaging the reputation of the country and its people.
The applicant maintained that the proposed accused persons were responsible for the creation, production and distribution of the defamatory and provocative content and it attracted offences of defamation, criminal intimidation, provocation with intent to cause rioting and promoting enmity between different groups etc.
He also contended that since he has suffered mental agony, distress and reputational harm within the jurisdiction of the Darakhshan police station, a written complaint had been filed with the SHO for the registration of an FIR, but the police did not entertain it.
The applicant sought directives for the SHO to lodge the case and for the investigation of the matter to be supervised by the Senior Superintendent of Police South.
Comments