Plaintiff In Title Suit Must Prove Own Case On Independent Evidence, Cannot Rely On Weakness Of Defence: Supreme Court Advocate Commissioner's Failure To Localize Land Per Title Deeds Fatal To Encroachment Claim: Andhra Pradesh High Court Enmity Is A Double-Edged Weapon, Can Be Motive For False Implication As Much As For Crime: Allahabad High Court Parity In Bail: Karnataka High Court Grants Relief To Accused In Robbery Case As Mastermind & Main Offenders Were Already Enlarged Specific Performance Denied If Buyer Fails To Prove Continuous Readiness With Funds; Part-Payment Can't Be Forfeited Without Specific Clause: Delhi High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept In Police Stations For Long, Courts Must Judiciously Exercise Power To Release On Supurdagi: Madhya Pradesh High Court Prolonged Incarceration Militates Against Article 21, Constitutional Principles Must Override Section 37 NDPS Rigors: Punjab & Haryana High Court Onus On Individual To Prove Claim Of 'Fear Of Religious Persecution' For Exemption Under Foreigners Act: Calcutta High Court Direct Recruits Cannot Claim Seniority From A Date Prior To Their Entry Into The Cadre: Orissa High Court Sale Deed Executed After Land Vests In State Confers No Title; Post-Vesting Purchaser Can’t Claim Compensation: Calcutta High Court No Right To Blanket Regularization For Contractual Staff; State Must Timely Fill Sanctioned Vacancies Under Reserved Quota: Supreme Court Non-Signatory Collaborator Under 'Deed Of Joint Undertaking' Can Invoke Arbitration Clause As A 'Veritable Party': Supreme Court Insolvency Proceedings Cannot Be Used As Coercive Recovery Mechanism For Complex Contractual Disputes: Supreme Court Legal Heirs Who Were Parties To Sale Cannot Challenge Transfer Under PTCL Act After Long Delay: Supreme Court SC/ST Act | Proceedings To Annul Sale Illegal If Initiated By Legal Heirs Who Were Parties To The Transaction: Supreme Court Consumers Cannot Be Burdened With Tariff Charges Beyond Period Of Service Delivery: Supreme Court Mere Non-Production Of Old Selection Records Or Non-Publication Of All Candidates' Marks No Ground To Direct Appointment: Supreme Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeals Against Acquittal In Sohrabuddin Shaikh Encounter Case; Says Prosecution Failed To Prove Conspiracy Dishonour Of Cheque Due To Signature Mismatch Or Incomplete Signature Attracts Section 138 NI Act: Supreme Court 138 NI Act | High Court Cannot Let Off Accused In NI Act Case By Ordering Only Cheque Amount Payment Without Interest Or Penalty: Supreme 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