MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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