Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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