Bombay HC dismisses plea against Zee TV show Tum Se Tum Tak: Stop watching it then 

Zee TV show Tum Se Tum Tak, which depicts a romance between a 46-year-old man and a 19-year-old woman, recently sparked backlash with a viewer filing a complaint against the show.  The high court has now dismissed the plea against the show.

The court told the complainant, "If you don't like the show, don’t watch it."

However, the Bombay High Court has slammed the complaint. A division bench consisting of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad noted that instead of pursuing legal action, people who find a program offensive should just stop watching it.

The matter concerns a First Information Report (FIR) filed by Sunil Sharma, who claimed that the plot "hurt sentiments."

Zee TV petitioned the court to have the FIR quashed. During the hearing, the bench questioned the very basis of the complaint

The bench said, “What is offensive in the serial? If we go by your idea, we will have to switch off the TV itself. A 46-year-old actor falls in love with a 19-year-old girl — will that hurt sentiments? We can understand if a show incites communal tension, but this is not such a case. If you don’t like a movie or show, don’t watch it.”

The court further expressed concern over inconsistencies in the complainant’s identity. Initially, Sharma identified himself to the Cyber Cell as “Sunil Sharma,” later claimed his name was “Sunil Mahendra Sharma,” while official records reflected “Mahendra Sanjay Sharma.”

The judges remarked it was “a mischief played in the court hall”, highlighting that the complainant had signed documents in three different ways.

Also Read: Ravi Kishan and Jitendra Kumar onboard as Mirzapur the film preps for shoot: Reports

The bench also questioned why Sharma failed to maintain anonymity if he genuinely feared repercussions, adding that his shifting identities suggested “vexatious conduct” and “mala fide intent.”

Additionally, the court criticised the Cyber Cell’s nodal officer for registering the FIR without verifying the complainant’s credentials. The judges described the officer’s conduct as “stupidity,” noting, “Your officer is not a child. This policeman didn’t even think to cross-check the complainant’s identity before filing the complaint. Let proper disciplinary action be taken as per service rules.”