Actor Hemal Ranasinghe has admitted charges of assaulting and criminally intimidating film critic Lakmina Ranasinghe and was released on Thursday after the Mount Lavinia Magistrate’s Court accepted a settlement between the two men.

The actor apologised and agreed to pay Rs. 500,000 in compensation, which the court was told will be donated to the Maharagama Cancer Hospital, with the receipt to be produced in court afterwards, the Daily Mirror reported.

The Magistrate told the actor that assaults belong in films and dramas, and that the law does not permit such conduct in real life.

The incident

The case arose from an incident at the Havelock City cinema complex on 8 January 2026, after the premiere of the film Faad. Lakmina Ranasinghe alleged he was struck on the head, neck, shoulder and back in front of several people from the entertainment industry.

According to his statement to police, the assault followed a review he had written of the film Maria, in which he did not mention Hemal Ranasinghe or run a photograph of the actor alongside it.

The actor initially pleaded not guilty and denied the assault. The parties were referred to a Mediation Board by order of the Magistrate at the 14 May hearing. After both sides indicated willingness to settle, the accused admitted the charges and terms were agreed.

The dispute over social media

The bulk of Thursday’s hearing was taken up not with the assault but with what has been posted about the case since.

Counsel Ajith Pathirana, for the complainant, told the court that a central condition of the settlement — that no insult or defamation be directed at his client — was “being seriously violated.” He handed the Magistrate copies of Facebook and other posts which he said justified the assault and defamed Lakmina Ranasinghe, and alleged that people from the entertainment industry, including a director described as a close friend of the accused, had published them while appearing in photographs with him.

“Regardless of how popular someone is, discipline is very important. Discipline must come before talent,” Pathirana submitted.

Defence counsel objected, saying his client knew nothing about posts made by others. “My client is a popular actor and many people take photographs with him. Just because someone puts an arm around him and takes a photograph does not mean that person is my client’s friend.”

Pathirana also said the settlement barred the accused from interfering with his client’s freedom of expression, which the defence denied doing. “The assault itself has interfered with my client’s freedom of expression,” he replied. “That is why this case was filed. Just because someone is an actor does not mean he can assault people.”

The Magistrate examined the documents, said publishing social media posts about a pending case in a manner prejudicial to the aggrieved party was completely inappropriate, and cautioned the actor to ensure such conduct is not repeated by him or by his friends.

Not reported

The Daily Mirror does not name the director or other individuals accused of publishing the posts, and does not say whether the Magistrate made any order in respect of them. It does not state the specific charges admitted or the statute, whether any condition of the settlement is enforceable if breached, or by when the hospital receipt must be produced. No other verified newsroom had filed on the settlement at the time of writing.

Sources: Daily Mirror.