UP Land Revenue Act | Map Correction Cannot Be Done By Mechanically Transferring Land To Compensate Deficiency Of Adjoining Plot: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction In Injunction Suit Between Private Parties Not Barred If Title Or Vesting In Panchayat Not In Issue: P&H High Court District Consumer Commission Duty-Bound To Refer Product For Laboratory Analysis When Prayed For; Cannot Dismiss For Want Of Expert Evidence: Punjab State Commission Section 135(3) BNSS | Executive Magistrate Cannot Demand Interim Bond Without Commencing Inquiry; Must Supply Kalandara Material & Follow Madhu Limaye Safeguards: Delhi High Court In Neha Bora Sections 126 & 130 BNSS | Writ Court Cannot Evaluate Sufficiency Of Material At Show-Cause Stage Unless There Is 'Nil Material': Delhi High Court Section 32 Evidence Act | Multiple Dying Declarations Cannot Be Discarded Over Minor Variations If Core Substratum Imputing Fatal Blow Remains Consistent: Allahabad High Court Multiple FIRs Arising From Identical Financial Scheme Can Be Clubbed And Transferred To First FIR Court: Bombay High Court POCSO | Mandating Injury Report Indicating Penetrative Assault For Victim Compensation Violates Article 14, Frustrates Sec 164-A CrPC: Allahabad High Court Section 308 IPC | Premeditation & Requisite Intention Must Be Proved; Single Blow With Stone In Sudden Fight Attracts Section 325 IPC: Delhi High Court Organizing A Book Fair Is A Private Activity And Not A 'Public Function' Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Calcutta High Court Prior Permission From Education Officer Before Issuing Recruitment Advertisement Is Mandatory, Not An Empty Formality: Bombay High Court Order 41 Rule 5 CPC | Tenant Facing Eviction Decree Liable To Pay Mesne Profits At Market Rate Till Delivery Of Possession: Himachal Pradesh High Court Anticipatory Bail In Matrimonial Disputes | Allegations Of Sexual Misconduct Cannot Be Treated As Automatic Grounds For Custodial Interrogation: Delhi High Court Section 35 BNSS | Notice For Appearance Under Section 35(3) Is Not A Mandatory Precondition For Arrest Under Section 104 Of The Customs Act: Gujarat High Court Section 58 BNSS | 24-Hour Cap Is An Outer Limit, Not A Licence To Detain Accused Until Morning Court Hours: Kerala High Court Section 106 Evidence Act Cannot Fill Gaps In Circumstantial Chain, Last-Seen Theory Fails Without Proximity To Time Of Death: Karnataka High Court Service Law | Procedural Violation In Domestic Inquiry Not Fatal Unless Delinquent Proves Real Prejudice: Bombay High Court Indian Succession Act | Unequal Disposition Or Exclusion Of Legal Heir Does Not Invalidate Will If Due Execution Proved: Madras High Court Civil Services Rules | Seniority Counts From Initial Appointment If Normal Probation Completed Without Extension; Minor Penalty Cannot Depress Rank: High Court Pre-Arrest Bail Under Section 31 DV Act Cannot Be Denied If Accused Had No Notice Of Protection Order: Kerala High Court Section 50 NDPS Act Applies Only To Personal Search, Inapplicable To Search Of Bag Carried By Accused: Himachal Pradesh High Court Railway Rolling Stock Transfers to IRFC Must Be Classified to Determine Sales Tax Liability Under Delhi Sales Tax Act: Delhi High Court No Contributory Negligence Can Be Attributed To Pillion Rider In Road Accident: Karnataka High Court Nasha Mukti Center Cannot Detain Adult Based Merely On Spouse's Consent Without Medical Mandate: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab Land Revenue Act | Revenue Officer Must Strictly Adhere To Approved Mode Of Partition Verbatim: Punjab & Haryana High Court Labour Court Can Draw Adverse Inference Against Employer For Non-Production Of Employment Records: P&H High Court Closure Of Evidence | Past Conduct Prior To Deposition Irrelevant For Deciding Plea To Adduce Further Evidence: Orissa High Court Supreme Court's Mandate In 'Mihir Rajesh Shah' On Supplying Written Grounds Of Arrest Applies Prospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Allegations Of Forceful Sexual Intercourse Raised After 14 Years Of Marriage Without Complaints Cannot Constitute Cruelty Under Section 13(1)(ia) Hindu Marriage Act: Telangana High Court Punjab Municipal Act | Municipality Alleging Unauthorised Construction Must Prove Violation By Cogent Evidence, Injunction Suit Maintainable Without Sec 49 Notice: P&H High Court Arbitration Act | Limitation To Challenge Award Commences From Date Certified Copy Is Obtained If Signed Copy Not Delivered Under Section 31(5): Madhya Pradesh High Court Pension Regulations | Voluntary Retirement Weightage Cannot Be Claimed By Employees Retired Prematurely Under Regulation 19(1): Telangana High Court Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Denied Solely Due To Marital Status; Judicial Declaration Operates Retrospectively: Allahabad High Court Transfer Of Female Employees With Infants | Administrative Exigency Must Yield To Constitutional Right Of Motherhood And Child Welfare: Rajasthan High Court Consumer Protection Act | Summary Jurisdiction Cannot Resolve Complex Factual Disputes Requiring Detailed Evidence & Cross-Examination: Punjab State Consumer Commission

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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