Indian cricketer Prithvi Shaw has told a Mumbai court that social media influencer Sapna Gill made false molestation allegations against him. He stated that the claims were aimed at damaging his reputation and misusing his public image.
Affidavit Filed In Court
In an affidavit submitted on Monday, Prithvi Shaw said Sapna Gill omitted key facts and altered her version of events. He alleged that she relied on fake or unrelated evidence to support her accusations. Shaw claimed she used his fame to harass him.
How The Dispute Began
The controversy began in 2023 after Shaw and Gill had an argument at a Mumbai pub. The disagreement reportedly started over taking selfies. The situation escalated, following which police filed a case against Gill and arrested her.
Gill’s Allegations Against Shaw
Sapna Gill later alleged that police refused to register her complaint against Prithvi Shaw. She accused him of molestation and insulting her modesty. Gill maintained that her concerns were not taken seriously by the authorities.
Matter Reaches Magistrate Court
Gill approached the Andheri magistrate’s court and sought directions for police to file a case against Shaw. Police informed the court that Shaw and others had not violated any laws. The magistrate then ordered a fresh probe under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Sessions Court Challenge
In April 2024, Sapna Gill challenged the magistrate’s order in the Dindoshi Sessions Court. After multiple delays, Shaw filed his response. He alleged that Gill fabricated charges to retaliate after the case against her.
Shaw Alleges Publicity Motive
Prithvi Shaw further claimed that Sapna Gill was seeking publicity and financial gain. He stated that the allegations were intended to pressure him through false claims and public attention.
Gill’s Lawyer Responds
Reacting to Shaw’s affidavit, Gill’s lawyer Ali Kashif Khan Deshmukh said the response lacked evidence. He stated that Shaw failed to provide any supporting proof or alibi in his defence.
Next Hearing Date
The court has adjourned the matter to March 31. Arguments from both sides are expected to be heard on the next date of hearing.
