The Maharashtra Police on Thursday registered a case against comedian Pranit More and others for posting allegedly objectionable content online, The Hindu reported.More, Himanshu Jangra and Dr Sejal Pawar, among other persons, were booked under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita pertaining to making sexually coloured remarks, distributing obscene materials and circulating false information intended to promote enmity between groups.They were also booked under a section of the Information Technology Act for publishing obscene material.The cybercrime department filed the case after a video was widely shared online in which Jangra expressed entitlement to physical intimacy in return for spending Rs 370 for a biryani on a date with a woman. He had also claimed to have pressured the woman to accompany him to a “dark” park despite her repeated reluctance.Pawar, an MBBS student at a hospital in Mumbai, had made allegedly objectionable comments about the reproductive organs of a male cadaver.Both persons were part of the audience in separate episodes of a comedy show hosted by More. Video clips of the episodes had been widely shared on social media.The views expressed on the show had led to criticism online.Jangra had been sacked from his job after the video of his comments was widely shared online.The Maharashtra Association of Resident Doctors said that Pawar’s comments were inappropriate and not in line with the dignity of the profession.On Thursday, Pawar apologised for the comments. “Looking back, I can see how my words could be interpreted differently from what I meant,” The Times of India quoted Pawar as saying.She said that she did not intend to disrespect anyone.On Thursday, the National Commission for Women took cognisance of the matter. It directed the Haryana Police chief to take action in the matter for “remarks allegedly glorifying sexual coercion”. More and Jangra were summoned by the panel on June 22.The episode involving Jangra had been recorded in Haryana, according to the commission.The panel said that it was concerned about the content of the video and the “manner in which the alleged conduct was trivialised and presented as entertainment before a public audience”.Edited by Tanya Shrivastava.