Hrithik Was NOT Stalked: An Open Letter to the Lawyer of Kangana Ranaut

Subject: Hrithik Was NOT Stalked: An Open Letter to the Lawyer of Kangana Ranaut
Date: 5 Oct 2017

Dear Mr. Rizwan Siddiquee,

Although I'm of Indian ethnicity, I was born and raised in America, so today, I'm going to exercise my American right to free speech. I'm also going to exercise my human right to have and voice my opinion. Therefore, I want to make it very clear that the aforementioned statements are facts, but the rest of my letter will be composed of my opinions.

(By the way, the above paragraph was how I also began my open letter to Hrithik Roshan, which was published on April 29, 2016; it was entitled, "Not Buying What You're Selling: An Open Letter to Hrithik Roshan." Please read it if you haven't done so already).

I hope you realize that Hrithik Roshan LIED in his official police complaint, which was recently leaked to the media and discussed by "India's top criminal lawyer," Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani. Notably, this complaint was sent THIS YEAR (on April 8, 2017) to the "Cyber Crime Cell" in Mumbai, so please read the contents here:

The above complaint makes DIFFERENT CLAIMS than Hrithik's previous complaint, which has been published and available in the public domain for quite some time:

1) In this NEW complaint, Hrithik lies by omission by leaving out the important detail that he himself gave Kangana his CORRECT EMAIL ID at Karan Johar's birthday party in May of 2014. (This is a crucial point that both parties -- Hrithik and Kangana -- agreed upon, but now Hrithik is changing his story: that too, in an official complaint to the police)!

A Hindustan Times article, from July 13, 2016, quotes from Hrithik's previous legal notice and clearly states, "Our client further clarified to you that the email ID from which you received the email was not his and he gave you his real email ID."

2) Hrithik is changing his story yet again because his previous legal notice (and many articles that have been in the public domain for quite some time) always indicated that Hrithik FIRST APPROACHED the Cyber Cell of Mumbai Police in December of 2014. An article from The Indian Express, published on March 18, 2016, says, "On December 12, 2014, Hrithik had first complained to the cyber crime division about an unknown person using the email-id [email protected] and talking to his fans. The complaint letter was then sent to concerned police officials. 'My client had filed the complaint first on December 12, 2014 regarding an imposter using the email address [email protected] and talking to people. This was followed up with the authorities quite a few times.'"

Now, in Hrithik's new police complaint, Hrithik LIES by saying that he complained to the Cyber Cell immediately, in May of 2014 itself. His account, as described in this article, is completely unbelievable because, at that point, there was NO REASON for Hrithik to approach the Cyber Cell by himself as Rangoli had just offered to file a joint complaint with him if he insisted that there was an impostor.

3) So why did Hrithik approach the Cyber Cell by himself --several months later in December of 2014 -- when, in this new police complaint, Hrithik says twice that he "decided to ignore the entire issue" and "decided to close the entire unfortunate episode"?

Obviously, there was something that motivated Hrithik to purposely wait for 6+ months before FIRST approaching the Cyber Cell. I believe it has something to do with the verdict-related information that was reported in this Times of India article published on November 18, 2016: "US report: 'Fake' Hrithik email a/c didn't exist or got deleted." This article specifically states that the US justice department "has been unable to locate the email account ([email protected]) because it either never existed or got automatically deleted after being not used for six months." The article goes on to discuss the ISP that hosts the domain of Hrithik's shady email address (the supposedly "fake" email address that he reserved for communicating to Kangana while having an extramarital affair with her). It says, "The ISP informed our office that it was unable to locate the account because the account either never existed or the account had not been accessed in at least six months and was automatically deleted including all related data. Given these facts we are unable to execute the request as it currently stands."

Perhaps "India's top criminal lawyer," Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, can explain why his client, Hrithik Roshan, purposely waited 6+ months before filing his first complaint with the Cyber Cell of Mumbai Police. Maybe he could also explain why Hrithik NEVER COOPERATED with Rangoli when she offered to immediately file a joint complaint with Hrithik -- in May, 2014 itself -- if he insisted that there was an impostor. Perhaps Hrithik's lawyer could additionally explain why Hrithik is now lying about all of this and leaving out the important detail that he himself gave his CORRECT EMAIL ID to Kangana at Karan Johar's birthday party in 2014. Actually, maybe Mr. Jethmalani could simply answer this question: what is the penalty in India for a criminal who LIES TO POLICE?

Finally, NO, Hrithik was NOT stalked by Kangana, and her emails were NOT unsolicited. When you give your correct email address to someone, and that person then emails you (any number of emails) -- without you EVER blocking that person or asking that person to stop emailing you -- you cannot cry and lie (at any point in time, even up to 3 years later) that you're a "victim" of cyber-"stalking" and cyber-"harassment." For someone to "stalk," "harass," or even "rape" a person, that person would have to at least say "NO" at some point; Hrithik never said "no." He didn't block Kangana or ever ask her to stop emailing him; instead, he ogled her every photo, video, and email and practically catalogued them for repeated viewing!

I, for one, am repulsed by this disgusting shitshow that was started AND perpetuated -- every step of the way -- by Hrithik and Rakesh Roshan. Please urge your client, Kangana Ranaut, to file multiple cases: one for every single crime that has been committed against her (by multiple people). And please read and respond to your recent DMs on Twitter.

Thank you.