Supreme Court Stays TV Actor Chahatt Khanna's Ex-husband Farhan Mirza's Arrest

Shruti Kakkar

30 Sep 2021 3:38 PM GMT

  • Supreme Court Stays TV Actor Chahatt Khannas Ex-husband Farhan Mirzas Arrest

    The Supreme Court today granted protection from arrest to TV Actress Chahat Khanna's husband Farhan Shahrukh Mirza in relation to the FIR registered accusing Farhan of forcing unnatural offence under section 377 of IPC upon Chahat, forcing her to undergo medical terminations of pregnancy etc. The division bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and AS Oka also issued notice in the...

    The Supreme Court today granted protection from arrest to TV Actress Chahat Khanna's husband Farhan Shahrukh Mirza in relation to the FIR registered accusing Farhan of forcing unnatural offence under section 377 of IPC upon Chahat, forcing her to undergo medical terminations of pregnancy etc.

    The division bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and AS Oka also issued notice in the Special Leave Petition filed by Farhan assailing Bombay High Court's order of rejecting his anticipatory bail.

    "Issue notice returnable on November 8, 2021. In the meanwhile there shall be stay on the arrest of the petitioner in FIR No 431 of 2018, police station Oshiwara, District Mumbai until further orders. The petitioner will cooperate in the pending investigation. Copy of the petition be served additionally to the Standing Counsel of State of Maharashtra," bench in their order noted.

    The Top Court has also directed Farhan to cooperate in the pending investigation.

    Allegations in the complaint :

    TV Actress Chahat Khanna and Farhan Shahrukh Mirza married on February 8, 2013 at Andheri Mumbai. After the marriage, Chahat had realised that Farhan had married with a malafide intention and was a drug addict and had no work to do.

    In April 2013, Farhan had also forced her to undergo medical terminations of pregnancy.

    On 1st October 2018, Chahat Khanna registered a FIR under Sections 376, 377, 316, 498(A), 295, 323, 504, 506(2), 406, 379, 420, 414 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

    She had alleged in her FIR that Farhan under the influence of drugs committed an unnatural offence contemplated u/s 377 of IPC against her and had also videographed the said act and other acts on his mobile phone when the couple were having intimate relationships. It was also alleged that Farhan used to threaten Chahat to circulate the said videos publicly and had also threatened to kill her.

    Allegations of Farhan and Farhan's mother torturing Chahat and forcing her to part with property i.e. cash and ornaments worth Rs 66 lakhs during the period when she was cohabiting with Farhan were also made in the FIR.

    Case Before Bombay High Court

    The Bombay High Court bench of Justice AS Gadkari on September 1, 2021 while rejecting Farhan Mirza's pre arrest bail observed that the FIR had clearly indicated that the offence levelled against Mirza u/s 377 of the IPC was a serious offence.

    "The alleged videography affected by the Applicant No.1 on his mobile phone, is yet to be recovered. The allegation that the Applicant No.1 was/is having a gun, needs to be thoroughly investigated by the police and if it is true then, the same has to be recovered from him. The further allegation that the Applicant No.1 is a drug addict, is also to be investigated by the police. Unless the Applicant No.1 is custodially interrogated by the police, the said recoveries and investigation into the said aspects are not possible. Application of Applicant No.1 for pre-arrest bail is accordingly rejected," High Court had observed.

    The Single Judge also relied on the Top Court's judgement in Aman Kumar and Ors v State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 1497 in which it was observed that the evidence of prosecutrix stands at higher pedestal than injured witness, needs no corroboration and on State of Himachal Pradesh v Shree Kant Shekhari AIR 2004 SC 4404 in which it was held that the prosecutrix is not accomplice in crime. Mere delay in lodging FIR per se is not a mitigating circumstance for accused when there was accusation of rape and does not render prosecution version brittle.

    Noting that Farhan's mother was a woman, senior citizen and that the allegations against her were of passing references of demand of amount from Actress Chahat Khanna and coercing her to sell her ornaments, the bench held that for the purpose of investigation of the present crime, her custodial interrogation was not necessary.

    Case Title: Farhan Shahrukh Mirza v The State of Maharashtra| SLP No 7242/2021

    Click Here To Read/ Download Order





    Next Story