Kshatriya Maratha Seva Sanstha filed a complaint with the Bandra metropolitan magistrate court, alleging that filmmaker Manjrekar violated the Indian Penal Code's sections 292 (sale of obscene content), 295 (punishment for obscene acts or words in public), 34 (common intention), and the Women Prohibition Act's Indecent Representation. Advocate DV Saroj filed a case alleging that the content provoked social unrest, culminating in riots across Maharashtra.

Another complaint, filed in the Mumbai sessions court's POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses) court, demanded the registration of an FIR against the director and other producers. Prasoon Joshi, the chairperson of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), was also named in the complaint. The court has scheduled a hearing for January 31.

Seema Deshpande, president of Bharatiya Stree Shakti, an NGO, filed a complaint alleging that the Mumbai police DCP zone 5 had been moved. However, because he had taken no action, they went to court. Seema Deshpande has filed an FIR under sections 292 (obscenity), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, as well as section 2 (c) of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, section 13 R/w S. 21 POCSO Act, and section 67 of the Information Technology Act.

Next week, the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench will hear petitioner Neelam Parwate of the Bhartiya Stree Shakti's case against the film's trailer.

The petition was filed after the trailer for the film was released on January 10, allegedly showing inappropriate scenes involving minor children, according to petitioners. The petitioners were opposed to the film's release. The petitioners changed their plea because Majrekar's directorial was already out last week.

The petitioners raised the issue of a separate certification process for each trailer issued by the film's producers through their lawyer, Shaunak Kothekar. Currently, only the films receive certificates, not the trailers, according to the petitioners' lawyer, Kothekar. It further indicated that the court should give directives to review the certificate that was granted to the film, either through the Information and Broadcasting Ministry or through the Ministry of Women and Child Development.

Real-life juveniles fill the parts of minor children in 'Nay Varan Bhat Loncha Kon Nay Koncha', who are purportedly shown having incestuous sexual connections with older women. This, according to the petitioners, is illegal and falls under the category of child pornography. They also claimed that the sexually graphic parts in the trailer did not appear in the movie. According to the petitioners, even the slightest mention of a minor having a sexual relationship with an adult is illegal.

Although the developers removed the trailer from YouTube after much uproar, petitioners claim that it is still visible on numerous other social media networks. The petitioners sought that, irrespective of the fact that the trailer had been removed since the incident, a case be filed against Manjrekar for child pornography, which is covered by numerous sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012. (POCSO Act).

The petitioners had also made contact with the National Commission for the Protection of Children's Rights (NCPCR). On January 12, they allegedly wrote to the Maharashtra Director General of Police, requesting that action be taken. The petitioners also want the court to establish guidelines to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) so that sequences like this don't end up on the big screen in the future. The admission stage of the Public Interest Litigation will be heard next week.