BJP Leader Shahnawaz Hussain Faces Rape Case After Supreme Court Setback

Paving the way for registration of an FIR against BJP leader Syed Shahnawaz Hussain on a woman's complaint alleging rape, the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed his plea challenging an order of the Delhi High Court for lodging a First Information Report and launching an investigation.

The Supreme Court, which observed it will not interfere with the high court order, said all remedies available under the law are open for Mr Hussain, a former Union minister.

"Let there be a fair investigation and, if there is nothing, it will exonerate you (Hussain)," a bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta told the counsel appearing for Mr Hussain.

Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra, representing Mr Hussain, told the bench that complaint after complaint was filed by the woman against the politician.

"There are complaints after complaints which were investigated by the police and nothing was found. It cannot go on and on," Mr Rohatgi argued, adding there was a "series of consistent attacks" against Mr Hussain.

However, the bench observed, "We find no reason to interfere." During the hearing, the top court observed that till date the statement of the complainant under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with recording of confessions and statements before a magistrate, has not been recorded.

Mr Luthra argued the complainant had alleged that she was in a relationship with Mr Hussain's brother.

"She may have all the grievances against my brother.... but I (Hussain) cannot be put to such trauma," he said.

"Let it be investigated," the bench observed, adding the orders of the trial court as well as the high court in the matter were against Mr Hussain.

When Mr Luthra said once an FIR is lodged, there may be consequences, the bench observed, "What consequences? You are not being held guilty. We are applying the law as we see. In a simple case, the victim has to run through all these loops." When reference was made to the trial court record, the Supreme Court said, "We have come to the stage of trial court record even before an FIR is registered. This speaks volume about this case." Mr Rohatgi referred to the sequence of events and said a number of complaints have been filed by the woman against Mr Hussain in several courts, including one in Patna. Mr Hussain's counsel said the complainant had approached the court on every occasion with multiple complaints.

The bench asked whether the police had informed the complainant that there was no sufficient ground to proceed and lodge an FIR in the matter.

"You may be a victim, she may not be a victim but there is a possibility of reverse also," the bench observed.

"Sorry, dismissed," ruled the bench, dismissing Mr Hussain's petition.

Mr Hussain's counsel requested the bench to clarify that its order will not come in the way of challenging the FIR when it is lodged.

"We will not say anything. Look at the number of hearings we have taken," the bench said, adding all remedies in law are available to the petitioner.

During the hearing, the counsel for the complainant alleged the arguments advanced by Mr Hussain's counsel were not correct.

The high court had on August 17 last year dismissed Mr Hussain's plea challenging a trial court order directing the Delhi Police to register an FIR against him, saying there was no perversity in the 2018 order.

The top court had on August 22, 2022 stayed the operation of the high court order.

During an earlier hearing before the court, Mr Hussain's counsel had dubbed the complaint "bogus" and "malicious".

In 2018, a Delhi-based woman had approached a lower court seeking registration of an FIR against Mr Hussain for alleged rape, which the BJP leader has denied.

A magisterial court had on July 7, 2018 ordered registration of an FIR against Mr Hussain, saying a cognisable offence was made out in the complaint.

This was challenged by the BJP leader before a sessions court which had dismissed his plea.

In its order on Mr Hussain's appeal, the high court had said, "There is no merit in the present petition. The petition is dismissed. The interim orders (for stay on action against Husssain) stand vacated. The FIR be registered forthwith. The investigations will be completed and a detailed report under Section 173 CrPC be submitted before the learned MM (metropolitan magistrate) within three months." The high court had also noted that while reference was made in the police's status report to the recording of the statement of the prosecutrix on four occasions, there was no explanation as to why the FIR was not lodged.

"The FIR only puts the machinery into operation. It is a foundation for the investigation of the offence complained of. It is only after investigations that the police can come to the conclusion whether or not an offence had been committed and if so by whom. In the present case, there seems to be a complete reluctance on the part of the police to even register an FIR," the high court had said.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)