Logo What's After the Movie
Section 375

Section 375 2019

Test your knowledge of Section 375 with our quiz!

Section 375 Plot Summary

Read the complete plot summary and ending explained for Section 375 (2019). From turning points to emotional moments, uncover what really happened and why it matters.


Notable film director Rohan Khurana, [Rahul Bhat], is arrested and convicted by a sessions court after Anjali Dangle, [Meera Chopra], accuses him of rape. In the High Court, senior and talented criminal barrister Tarun Saluja, [Akshaye Khanna], works hard to punch holes in the accuser’s claims, while Hiral Gandhi, [Richa Chadha], a utopian and fervent lawyer fighting her first big case, who was once Tarun’s trainee, serves as the prosecutor and defence barrister for the claimed victim. Tarun goes by his principle Law is a fact, Justice is abstract and believes that a lawyer should not get emotionally involved in a case or get into an ethical debate. At a seminar in a flashback, also attended by Hiral, he surmises how justice is left out without proper defence, noting that the pursuit of justice is nothing but a career opportunity for the defence lawyer, prosecution & the judges as well. He summarises this with his line > We’re in the business of law, not of Justice. < This is completely contrary to Hiral’s belief, as she gets passionately involved in her pursuit to deliver justice. For this reason, she had to quit Tarun’s law firm in the past.

Tarun in his cross-examination exposes tampering of evidence, lies and facts hidden by key witnesses. He proposes that Anjali had a consensual relation with Rohan which started with the pressure of retaining her job, but with time she got emotionally involved in the relationship. Later, when she realises that Rohan is only interested in a physical relationship with her whereas she was expecting him marry her, there is a big argument between the two on this issue. Rohan belittles her and tells her that without him her career is over. Later, Rohan throws her out of his second flat where they pursued their relationship. After a couple of days, Anjali apologises to Rohan & they rekindle their relationship. Later in the day, she reports this incident as rape to police.

Insisting that it is a case of an affair gone sour, Tarun points out that the law does not regard consensual physical relations as rape. Hiral argues that though a couple may have had a consensual relationship in the past, any subsequent sexual encounter without consent of the girl is rape. The case disputes the legal provisions of the penal code’s section 375 that defines conditions under which a sexual offence can be defined as rape.

The judges are put in a tough spot because on one hand, it is clear that Anjali had filed this case to avenge her humiliation, and on the other hand, there is a strong public perception that rich and influential people are exploiting the underprivileged. The two judges deliberate on the case in their chamber. A judgement in favour of Tarun would reflect badly on their credentials, despite circumstantial evidence clearly pointing to false rape charges. One of the judges peeks from the balcony and sees protests against the accused going out of control, and it is clear what their judgement would be.

The bench, while delivering the verdict accepts the merit of the case presented by Tarun, but public sentiment forces the bench to strictly go by the book and deliver the judgment in line with popular opinion. The judges uphold the session court judgement which states that since there is no evidence of consent or force for this particular incident, the statement of the victim is considered as paramount evidence. Rohan’s wife Kainaz, Shriswara, indicates to him that she will not aid him anymore, and leaves. Tarun promises Rohan that he will approach the Supreme Court immediately. Rohan is taken to prison, and Anjali confesses in secret to Hiral that what Tarun had said in the court was true and she did this only to get revenge on Rohan. Hiral is shocked by this, and is later invited for dinner by Tarun’s family. Tarun once again reminds her “We’re in the business of law, not of Justice”, a principle she has now truly understood.

Section 375 Timeline

Follow the complete movie timeline of Section 375 (2019) with every major event in chronological order. Great for understanding complex plots and story progression.


Tarun's seminar flashback: law vs justice

In a seminar shown as a flashback, Tarun Saluja proclaims that 'Law is a fact, Justice is abstract' and argues that a lawyer should not be emotionally involved in a case. He suggests that the pursuit of justice becomes a career opportunity for the defense, prosecution, and judges. The seminar contrasts Tarun's cynical view with Hiral Gandhi's belief that justice must be pursued passionately.

Flashback Seminar

Anjali's accusation leads to Rohan's arrest

Notable film director Rohan Khurana is arrested after assistant costume designer Anjali Dangle accuses him of rape and is convicted by a sessions court. The case moves through the legal process, setting the stage for Tarun Saluja's challenge in the High Court. This public dispute centers on whether the accusation can be proven under the penal code.

Sessions Court

Tarun's cross-examination and the consent debate

In the High Court, Tarun Saluja cross-examines key witnesses, exposing tampering and untruths. He proposes that Anjali had a past consensual relationship with Rohan that began under job pressure, and that she later grew emotionally involved. The exchange highlights a central legal question about consent and rape.

High Court

Rohan-Anjali conflict and rekindling

The relationship between Rohan and Anjali is depicted as volatile; Rohan belittles her and claims that without him her career is over, then throws her out of his second flat. After a couple of days, Anjali apologizes to Rohan and they rekindle their relationship. This back-and-forth sets the stage for the subsequent report to police.

Rohan's second flat

Anjali reports the incident to the police

Later in the day, after rekindling, Anjali reports the incident as rape to the police. The formal accusation triggers police investigation and subsequent courtroom proceedings. The move intensifies the clash between personal history and legal definitions of consent.

Police station

Judges' dilemma: public opinion vs legal merit

The bench faces a tough choice as public perception suggests that the rich exploit the underprivileged, while the legal evidence remains contested. The judges deliberate in their chamber, weighing the merits of the case against mounting protests. A glimpse of protests from the balcony foreshadows the external pressure on the verdict.

Court chambers

Verdict upholds the session court ruling

The bench delivers a verdict that acknowledges Tarun's arguments but adheres to the letter of the law, upholding the session court's finding. It states that, in the absence of clear evidence of consent or force in the incident, the victim's statement is given paramount importance. The decision reflects a strict application of legal standards over public sentiment.

Court

Rohan's wife Kainaz leaves him

Following the verdict, Rohan's wife Kainaz tells him she will not aid him anymore and leaves. Her decision marks a personal consequence of the public and judicial unraveling of Rohan's life. The relationship strain underscores the broader social impact of the case.

Rohan's home

Tarun vows to take the case to the Supreme Court

Tarun promises Rohan that he will approach the Supreme Court immediately to challenge the verdict. The commitment signals the legal battle's continuation beyond the High Court and into higher courts. The move preserves Tarun's principled stance on the law's procedural pathways.

Tarun's office

Anjali confesses the truth to Hiral

Anjali confesses in secret to Hiral that Tarun's statements in court were true and that she acted out of revenge against Rohan. The revelation reframes the narrative around motive and credibility in the case. Hiral's reaction shifts as she reassesses the pursuit of justice.

Hiral's place

Dinner invitation and Tarun's final reminder

Hiral is shocked by Anjali's confession and is later invited to dinner by Tarun's family. During the gathering, Tarun reiterates his famous line, 'We're in the business of law, not of Justice,' a principle that Hiral comes to truly understand. The moment links the case's philosophy to personal belief.

Tarun's family home

Section 375 Characters

Explore all characters from Section 375 (2019). Get detailed profiles with their roles, arcs, and key relationships explained.


Tarun Saluja — Akshaye Khanna

A principled senior criminal barrister who insists that law is a fact and justice is abstract. He probes the accuser's case with cool logic, challenging evidence and witness testimony. His professional detachment clashes with his empathy for fairness, shaping a methodical but morally loaded defense.

🧠 Strategic 🕊️ Integrity ✨ Diligence

Anjali Dangle — Meera Chopra

Anjali Dangle is the assistant costume designer who files the rape allegation against Rohan. Her actions drive the case and push the legal system into a confrontation over consent, power, and reputation. She navigates vulnerability and agency as the legal battle unfolds.

🎗️ Victim 🔎 Witness 🧪 Evidence

Hiral Gandhi — Richa Chadda

A fervent lawyer who prosecutes the case and was once Tarun's trainee. She fights for justice with passion, choosing to engage emotionally in the proceedings, which clashes with Tarun's philosophy. Her evolution from firm associate to a more morally engaged advocate is central to the conflict.

💡 Moral Courage 🕊️ Empathy 🎯 Justice in Practice

Rohan Khurana — Rahul Bhat

The accused, a powerful figure who belittles Anjali and uses his influence to try to derail the case. His confidence collapses as evidence mounts and the court examines his actions and promises. He embodies the conflict between privilege and accountability.

💼 Power & Privilege 🔗 Influence 💔 Personal Betrayal

Kainaaz Khurana — Shriswara

Rohan's wife who indicates she will not aid him and ultimately distances herself from him. She represents a domestic, relational lens on the case and the social repercussions of a public accusation. Her stance signals the personal cost of the legal battle.

💔 Family Ties 🛡️ Loyalty 🧭 Duty

Justice Madgaonkar — Kishore Kadam

A session court judge who weighs the initial verdict and deals with case complexities, maintaining formal decorum amid public scrutiny. He grapples with balancing the letter of the law against the pressures of public opinion. His rulings demonstrate the weight of precedent in a high-profile case.

🏛️ Authority 🧭 Impartiality 🧠 Diligence

Justice Indrani — Kruttika Desai

A member of the bench who deliberates with the other judges and contributes to the verdict. She embodies judicial restraint, focusing on the evidentiary record and legal standards. Her involvement underscores the complexities of delivering a decision in a case that captures national attention.

🏛️ Justice System 🧭 Impartiality 🕊️ Responsibility

Section 375 Settings

Learn where and when Section 375 (2019) takes place. Explore the film’s settings, era, and how they shape the narrative.


Time period

Present-day

The events occur in contemporary India, with current legal frameworks and courtroom procedures. It highlights modern debates around consent, evidence, and the role of lawyers and judges in shaping public perception.

Location

Mumbai, India

The story unfolds within the urban legal landscape of Mumbai, spanning session courtrooms, the High Court, and the modern Indian justice system. The city’s fast-paced milieu provides the backdrop for a high-stakes rape case that tests legal ethics and media influence. The drama centers on the clash between procedural rigor and public perception in a contemporary Indian metropolis.

🏙️ Mumbai 🇮🇳 Indian setting

Section 375 Themes

Discover the main themes in Section 375 (2019). Analyze the deeper meanings, emotional layers, and social commentary behind the film.


⚖️

Law vs Justice

The central conflict pits the letter of the law against the broader concept of justice. Tarun maintains that law is a fact while justice remains abstract, seeking to preserve objectivity. Hiral believes justice requires moral conviction, even if it means bending strict interpretation. The courtroom becomes a theatre where philosophical clashes shape outcomes.

🧩

Truth & Evidence

Evidence can be contested, testimonies misinterpreted, and motives obscured. Tarun's cross-examination exposes tampering and bias, challenging the reliability of every assertion. The pursuit of truth becomes a strategic contest, revealing how procedure can be used to guard or obscure facts.

🎭

Public Perception vs Legal Reality

Protests, media narratives, and public outrage pressurize the judiciary as much as the courtroom presents. The film critiques how societal verdicts can influence legal decisions, even when the formal facts demand a different conclusion. The final judgment wrestles with social consequences beyond the case file.

Mobile App Preview

Coming soon on iOS and Android

The Plot Explained Mobile App

From blockbusters to hidden gems — dive into movie stories anytime, anywhere. Save your favorites, discover plots faster, and never miss a twist again.

Sign up to be the first to know when we launch. Your email stays private — always.

Section 375 Spoiler-Free Summary

Discover the spoiler-free summary of Section 375 (2019). Get a concise overview without any spoilers.


In the glittering yet unforgiving world of Bollywood, the celebrated director Rohan Khurana finds his reputation teetering on the edge of collapse when a costume assistant, Anjali Dangle, steps forward with a grave accusation. The film industry’s bright façade gives way to a stark legal arena, where fame, power and vulnerability intersect, setting the stage for a courtroom drama that feels as much a societal mirror as a personal trial.

At the heart of the case stand two sharply contrasting legal minds. Tarun Saluja, a senior barrister known for his razor‑sharp intellect and a philosophy that separates law from the abstract notion of justice, takes on the defence with a cool, almost detached precision. Opposite him, Hiral Gandhi, an outspoken and idealistic lawyer who once apprenticed under Tarun, steps into the prosecutorial role, driven by a fierce belief that the pursuit of justice must be personal and passionate. Their past connection fuels a subtle, under‑current tension that colors every exchange, turning the courtroom into a chessboard of ideology as well as evidence.

The trial unfolds against a backdrop of relentless media scrutiny and public outcry, where every statement reverberates beyond the walls of the courtroom and ripples through the streets. Judges find themselves navigating not only legal statutes but also the weight of popular sentiment, creating an atmosphere thick with moral ambiguity. The clash between procedural rigidity and the yearning for equitable outcomes fuels a palpable sense of urgency, highlighting the delicate balance between the letter of the law and the spirit of fairness.

Beyond the legal sparring, the story probes the personal costs of such a high‑stakes confrontation. Relationships are tested—Rohan’s marriage, Hiral’s convictions, and even the mentor‑protégé bond between Tarun and Hiral—each character must confront what they are willing to sacrifice for their principles. The film weaves these strands into a suspense‑laden portrait of power, responsibility, and the elusive line between law and justice.

Can’t find your movie? Request a summary here.

Movies with Similar Twists and Themes

Uncover films that echo the narrative beats, emotional arcs, or dramatic twists of the one you're exploring. These recommendations are handpicked based on story depth, thematic resonance, and spoiler-worthy moments — perfect for fans who crave more of the same intrigue.


© 2026 What's After the Movie. All rights reserved.