Law Does Not Countenance Resurrection Of Stale Claims Through Inventive Drafting: Karnataka High Court Rejects 20-Year-Old Partition Dispute CPC Provisions Cannot Be Used to Transfer Consumer Complaints Across States: NCDRC Invokes Section 62 to End Forum-Shifting Ordeal in Nirmal Spinning Mills Case FSSA Provisions Prevail Over PFA Act In Cases Of Overlapping Jurisdiction, Prosecution Under Old Act Impermissible: J&K High Court Motive Pales Into Significance When Direct Ocular Evidence Establishes Crime; Enmity Is A Double-Edged Sword: Allahabad High Court Plaintiff Cannot Succeed Merely On Weakness Of Defence; Initial Burden To Prove Claim Rests On Claimant: Madras High Court Witness Threats Noted By Higher Courts Disentitle Convict To Suspension Of Sentence: Gujarat High Court Family Court Orders Must Be Enforced Immediately, Pendency Of Applications No Excuse For Disobedience: Delhi High Court 'Fraud And Justice Never Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Reverses Order To Grant Land Based On Fabricated Records Development Authority Competent To Sanction Land Use Conversion From Residential To Nursing Home If Permitted Under Master Plan & Zoning Regulations: Allahabad High Court Notification Changing Import Policy From 'Free' To 'Restricted' Operative Only From Exact Time Of Publication In E-Gazette: Delhi High Court On Name Of Protection of the Complainer Excluding Relevant Defence Evidence in Sexual Offences Trials May Breach Fair Trial Rights: UK Supreme Court Boundaries In Sale Deed Prevail Over Discrepancy In Property Description; Adverse Possession Begins From Date Of Hostile Notice: Punjab & Haryana HC Supreme Court of UK Upholds HMRC Decision: Professional Fees Incurred by Investment Holding Company Are Capital Expenditure Criminal Law Cannot Be Used To Silence Citizens Questioning Legality Of Police Action: Madras High Court Quashes Obstruction Case Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Centre To Treat Ashok Khemka As Empaneled For Future Assignments, Says Denying Relaxation Granted To Peers Is Discriminatory Section 34 Court Cannot Substitute Arbitrator’s Plausible View With Its Own; Not Bound By Technical Rules Of Evidence Act: Madras High Court Article 227 Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Reopen Decrees Finalized Four Decades Ago: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Challenge To 1985 Order Daughter Has No Right To Inherit Agricultural Land If Succession Opened Before 2005 HSA Amendment: Delhi High Court Rejects Plaint Indian Trust Act Inapplicable To Public Religious Endowments; Sale Of Charity Property Without HR&CE Commissioner's Permission Void: Madras High Court Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Collateral Warranties Under Construction Contracts FIR Quashed Against Newsclick: PMLA Proceedings Cannot Stand Alone Without A Predicate Offence, Rules Delhi High Court Assessee Claiming TDS Exemption On "Reimbursement" To Non-Residents Must Obtain Mandatory Tax Determination Under Section 195(2): Madras High Court

Supreme Court stayed registration of FIR against BJP's Shahnawaz Hussain in rape case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court stayed all legal action against BJP Leader Syed Shahnawaz Hussain on Monday in relation to an alleged rape allegation from 2018. Hussain has petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn a Delhi High Court decision ordering the filing of a FIR against him.

Now, the case will be heard the following month. The complainant, who was reportedly intimidated and abused at the direction of the accused, has been given permission by the highest court to approach the Police, who will be obligated to offer protection, if necessary.

Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia are also on the bench, and they have given the complainant side permission to make any objections it chooses.

Prior to the bench of Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice C.T. Ravikumar last week, the subject was referred for an urgent hearing.

Hussain's senior attorney, Mukul Rohatgi, contended that the High Court had applied the law incorrectly by assuming that the only way to conduct an investigation is after a FIR has been filed.

According to Rohatgi, "like this, anyone may make complaints against top bureaucrats and damage their reputation." He added that the inquiry report did not uncover enough evidence to warrant opening an investigation.

He asserted that Hussain's brother was the target of all the accusations. In 2013, the complainant claimed that he had assaulted her under a false pretence of marriage. But the case wasn't filed until 2018, four years later. Hussain is accused of calling the complainant to his home to settle a dispute with his brother. However, he gave the victim a drink, rendering her unconscious, and Hussain then took advantage of her. "Sexual assault is not mentioned in the complaint," Rohatgi said.

In June 2018, a complaint was made against BJP leader Syed Shahnawaz Hussain, stating that he had committed crimes under sections 376, 328, 120B, and 506 of the IPC. Later, the complainant submitted an application under Section 156(3) CrPC asking the municipal police for instructions on how to register a FIR. On July 4, 2018, the city police submitted an action taken report (ATR) to the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM). It was determined that the investigation did not support the charges made by the complainant.

Hussain had argued that the MM had instructed the registration of a FIR even though the ATR had been received. The Special Judge upheld this decision and noted that the Criminal Amendment Act of 2013 had made it a requirement for the Police to record the victim's statement in rape cases. Furthermore, it was determined that the investigation into the filing of the FIR was only preliminary in nature and that the MM was correct in not treating the ATR as a cancellation report.

The Special Judge's decision to dismiss his revision petition against the MM's directives and order the registration of a FIR was appealed.

The Delhi High Court noted that the allegation provided to the police commissioner made it abundantly evident that rape had been committed following the administration of a "stupefying chemical." Additionally, it stated that the SHO was required by law to file the FIR after receiving the complaint. The police are required to provide a report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the format specified by the court after their investigation is complete. Justice Asha Menon had ordered the inquiry in the case to be finished and a full report under Section 173 CrPC to be produced before the MM within a period of three months while noting the "total unwillingness" on the part of the municipal police to lodge the FIR.

The Delhi High Court has been challenged by Hussain in the Supreme Court, who claims that filing a FIR against him would damage his reputation.

Latest Legal News