FIR Alleges Harassment of a Married Woman by Singer Hardil Pandya, Raises Serious Questions Over Contradictory Narratives and Conduct

The legal controversy surrounding singer Hardil Pandya has intensified following the registration of a strict First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Dr. Rutu Sidhawat, which alleges harassment of a married woman and brings into focus not only the incident itself but also glaring inconsistencies between Pandya’s official statements and his public narrative.

While Pandya has publicly attempted to frame the episode as a dispute arising from song rights, the complainant’s version, as recorded in official submissions, suggests that the issue goes far beyond a professional disagreement. It is not denied that a discussion regarding song rights occurred. However, according to Dr. Rutu Sidhawat, Pandya allegedly failed to disclose a crucial aspect of the incident namely, that he was allegedly under the influence of alcohol and used severe abusive language toward her husband, Shyam Sidhawat, a well-established and respected name in the entertainment industry. The complaint maintains that the abuse was unprovoked and deeply distressing.
Pandya has also sought to question the FIR by emphasizing what he describes as a delay in its registration. This assertion, however, omits key procedural facts. As stated by Dr. Sidhawat, a police application was submitted within approximately two hours of the incident at Bodakdev Police Station. She was later informed that jurisdiction lay with Vastrapur Police Station, prompting a procedural transfer. After conducting a preliminary inquiry and verification, Vastrapur Police proceeded with the FIR. Legal experts note that such timelines reflect due process rather than retaliation.
A major concern emerging from the case is a direct contradiction between Pandya’s own FIR and his later social media statements. In his FIR, Pandya reportedly stated that he was accompanied by two friends and that they met another friend at the location, suggesting a known interaction. However, in a subsequent social media video released after Dr. Sidhawat’s FIR, Pandya claimed that he was merely passing by, saw his friends by chance, greeted them, and was then suddenly assaulted without provocation.
This inconsistency between a sworn legal document and a public video narrative has raised serious credibility concerns. Legal observers point out that such contradictions are often closely examined during investigation, as they may directly affect the reliability of a party’s account.
According to Dr. Rutu Sidhawat’s statement, the situation escalated after Hardil Pandya allegedly harassed her and used abusive language directed at her. This reportedly provoked her brother, Pavan Parmar, who reacted by slapping Pandya. During the ensuing commotion, when Shyam Sidhawat attempted to exit the restaurant, he was also allegedly slapped.
Dr. Sidhawat has further stated that during the incident, Pandya allegedly displayed aggressive and erratic behavior and appeared to hold a heavy stone while making threatening gestures. She has alleged that he used abusive signs and told her words to the effect of: “I will see you after this; I will make sure you are disturbed.” These assertions form the basis of her fear and complaint and are currently under investigation.
Adding to the controversy is Pandya’s conduct after the incident. He released a social media video referencing Shyam Sidhawat, followed by what the complainant’s side describes as coordinated paid-media narratives. Critics argue that these actions appear aimed at damaging Shyam Sidhawat’s reputation, raising concerns about attempts to influence public perception outside the legal process.
Authorities have confirmed that the case remains under active investigation. While an FIR does not establish guilt, legal experts emphasize that allegations involving harassment of a married woman, contradictory statements, and post-incident public narrative management are treated with heightened seriousness under law.