'Let There Be Investigation' : SC Dismisses BJP Leader Shahnawaz Hussain's Plea Challenging Direction To Register FIR In Rape Case

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed an SLP filed by BJP Leader Syed Shahnawaz Hussain in connection with an alleged 2018 rape case. Hussain had approached the top court challenging an order of the Delhi High Court directing registration of FIR against him. The Supreme Court had earlier stayed all proceedings against him in the matter. However, during Monday's hearing, the bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta dismissed the SLP after hearing Senior Counsels Siddharth Luthra and Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Hussain, in detail. Initially, the bench put to Mr. Luthra, "Your objection to this impugned order is mainly two fold:1. She was against the brother. 2. She had filed an earlier application alleging that some acid was thrown against her. That application was dismissed. Review was also dismissed. Now after this, she says that the petitioner here called her for negotiation and committed rape."The bench then remarked, "Now, till date her statement has not been recorded. 164 statement has not been recorded. You have got a stay right from the beginning. Now 156(3) order and the revision order are all consistently against you. Police is also showing a lot of interest. Without any investigation they are coming out with status reports. Tell us why should we interfere?" When Mr. Luthra responded by saying, "Let me give you an answer...a legal answer", the bench replied and remarked, "There is no need for an answer. It is quite evident to us."Mr. Luthra proceeded and said, "These status reports are in the nature of ATR(Action Taken Reports) that the police has submitted before the Magistrate." He further argued, "It can’t be a situation where her relationship with my brother is leading me to multiple harassment. That is the nub of the matter. Knowing that she is coming after me, because I am in public life, I had first filed a complaint against her. She may have grievances against my brother, she may have whatever relationship with my brother, good, bad, is different. far as my brother is concerned, he is an adult. I cannot be put to trauma. It is for him to deal with it."Mr. Luthra then informed the court, "...her counsel has been filing cases against me in different jurisdictions in his personal capacity. It’s a double whammy."While showing several complaints that have been filed against the petitioner by the Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant in different jurisdictions, Luthra also showed that the counsel for the Complainant is a political person who is also a Congress leader who has been pursuing several cases in his personal capacity against the petitioner. He said, "The lawyer is a political opponent. What could be more peculiar that the lawyer and the litigant have joined hands to persecute?"The Bench did not merit the argument and remarked, "It is natural. If somebody is prosecuted by you, he will also go to someone who is your opponent. We can’t draw inferences."Mr. Luthra further pointed out, "It is malafide. It is an absurdity."The Bench remarked again, "This is not even a case where an FIR has been allowed to be lodged. Let it be investigated. There may not be nothing in it."Mr. Luthra responded and said, "There will be consequences."The Bench remarked, "What consequences. You are not being held guilty. You have all the remedy. We are applying the law as we see."Mr. Luthra further argued, "In a matter of this nature where there is a past history where she has not succeeded, it is a repeat attempt." Pointing towards the complaint filed by the complainant, Mr. Luthra submitted, "It says Complainant has gone to the police many times. Police has recorded the statement of the Complainant. Based on this you go for a direction under 156(3). I ask myself, while seeking a direction under 156(3) there must be a complaint filed with some authority. In this case there is no such complaint. The complaint they rely on should be on record because after all you are saying that the police is not acting and please issue directions under 156(3)."The Bench remarked, "They rely on the complaint to the Police Commissioner."The Bench further showed that the trial court has recorded in its findings that the status report of the police refers to the complaint received by the police from the Commissioner’s office. That is why she has approached under 156(3). "This means that there is compliance with the requirements under 154(3)", Justice Dipankar Datta who was on the bench, remarked. Justice Ravindra Bhat then remarked, "We take a case where all these political issues were not there. If your client was not a politician, in a simple case the victim has to run through so many loops. Even in Nirbhaya and the most acute case all these loops would be there."When Mr. Luthra was presenting the trial court record, Justice Bhat remarked, "We have come to the trial court record even before the FIR is registered. This speaks volumes about this case. You are as powerful as he claims you are, let there be an...

'Let There Be Investigation' : SC Dismisses BJP Leader Shahnawaz Hussain's Plea Challenging Direction To Register FIR In Rape Case

Anurag Tiwary

Tags