Rape Allegations Against BJP Leader Shahnawaz Hussain Bogus : Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi To Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard plea filed by BJP Leader Syed Shahnawaz Hussain in connection with an alleged 2018 rape case. Hussain has 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. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice S Ravindra Bhat, on Wednesday, stated that the matter may be heard again on 18th October but not necessarily by the same combination of the bench.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Hussain, submitted that the entire lump of allegations was against Hussain's brother. As per him, the complainant had alleged that Hussain's brother had raped her under false pretext of marriage in 2013. The complaint was however lodged in 2018. The allegation against Hussain is that he called the complainant to his farmhouse to sort things with his brother. However, he administered a drink to victim which made her unconscious and thereafter, Hussain took advantage of her. Sr. Adv. Rohatgi submitted–

"It's a grave case of abuse against a public figure not only by complainant but by the counsel- against my client in Delhi, Patna. The petitioner is a public figure in public light for 40 years. It's her case that she was forcibly married to my brother. Please see my letter which states that I'm not residing with my brother and have no business with his daily life. She was defaming my family members and uploaded false and concocted accusations. I also wrote to the economic offences wing."

He further highlighted that a complaint, which was against Hussain's brother in 2013 was filed only in 2018, five years after the alleged offence. He added that the complaint against Hussain's brother was filed on 31.1.2018 and the alleged date of occurrence of rape by Hussain against the complainant was on 12.4.2018. He stated–

"If she was raped on 12th April, it would have found mention on 25th April complaint. Every month, every week she is visiting the police station and having disputes with the brother. The present complaint is filed on 21st, 4 days before the dismissal. Why? Because she was aware of the dismissal. This was filed in Saket court. The first one was in Patiala House, the second in Saket. I would imagine her to go to Patiala House again if it was dismissed but this one is in Saket."

Justice Rastogi orally remarked–

"If there is an offence recommitted from this very complaint, how will the matter proceed? If you do not permit the matter to be examined how can that matter proceed. Section 164(3) statement is also not recorded. If someone is from political background it does not mean someone cannot file a complaint against you?"

Sr. Adv. Rohatgi retorted by submitting that anytime a serious complaint against a public figure was raised, FIR could not be filed if allegations were bogus. He relied upon Section 157(1)(b) of the CrPC and the judgement of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. for the same and said–

"If you make a complete bogus allegation, it won't result in FIR and investigation."

The matter will now be heard next Tuesday on 18th October 2022. 

Background

A complaint was filed against BJP Leader, Syed Shahnawaz Hussain in June 2018, alleging commission of offences under Sections 376, 328, 120B and 506 IPC. The complainant later filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, seeking directions to the city Police for the registration of FIR. An action taken report (ATR) was filed by the city Police on 4th July, 2018 before the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM). It was concluded that as per the inquiry, the allegations raised by the complainant were not found to be substantiated.

Here, Hussain had submitted that despite the receipt of ATR, the MM directed registration of an FIR. This order was upheld by the Special Judge which observed that the Criminal Amendment Act of 2013 had made it mandatory for the Police to record the statement of the victim in rape cases. Moreover, with regard to the registration of the FIR, it was concluded that the inquiry which had been made was only a preliminary inquiry and the MM had rightly not treated the ATR as a cancellation report.

An appeal was filed against the order of the Special Judge dismissing his revision petition against the orders of the MM and directing registration of FIR.

Delhi HC's Decision

The Delhi High Court observed that the complaint sent to the Commissioner of Police clearly disclosed the commission of the cognizable offence of rape after administration of a "stupefying substance". It also said that when the complaint was forwarded to the SHO, he was obligated under law to register the FIR. The court had directed that the police, on completing investigation, will have to submit a report under Section 173 CrPC in the prescribed format. While noting the "complete reluctance" on the part of city police to register the FIR, Justice Asha Menon had directed the investigation in the matter to be completed and a detailed report under Section 173 CrPC to be submitted before the MM within a period of three months.

Hussain has moved to the Supreme Court against this Delhi High Court, stating that the registration of an FIR against him would ruin his reputation.

CASE TITLE: Syed Shahnawaz v GNCTD SLP(Crl) No. 7653/2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order