In an alleged rape case, the Delhi High Court has overturned a trial court’s order that directed the registration of a FIR against BJP leader Syed Shahnawaz Hussain and his brother Shahbaz Hussain.
The woman involved claimed that Shahbaz Hussain had raped her in 2017 under the pretenses of marriage, while Shahnawaz Hussain allegedly advised her not to make a fuss about it.
Although the Metropolitan Magistrate initially refused to order the police to register an FIR, an Additional Sessions Judge of Patiala House Court later found that the woman’s complaint disclosed a cognizable offense and instructed the Delhi Police to file an FIR against both Shahbaz and Shahnawaz Hussain.
Justice Amit Mahajan has revoked the previous order and sent the case back to the court for a fresh decision, allowing Shahnawaz Hussain and his brother to be heard. The court was addressing the plea submitted by Shahbaz Hussain and Shahnawaz Hussain against the ruling of the Additional Sessions Judge. The ASJ had previously overturned the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order and directed the SHO of the Mandir Marg police station to register an FIR under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 420, 376, 295A, 493, 496, 506, 509, 511, and 120B, in response to the allegations.
The complainant claimed that Shahbaz Hussain presented himself as the brother of a BJP leader when they met to discuss her NGO. She was taken with him and became close to him, believing his promise to marry her. However, she alleged that Shahbaz Hussain raped her and only said he would marry her after she objected. She later discovered that he was already married with two children.
According to her allegations, she approached Shahnawaz Hussain for assistance, but he urged her not to make a fuss about the situation as it would harm both parties. She claimed that Shahbaz Hussain married her in January 2017 with the presence of a Maulvi, but she later found out that the Maulvi had provided her with a fake marriage certificate. Despite filing two complaints on September 21, 2017, and December 19, 2017, she claimed that the police did not take any action.
The petitioners’ lawyer argued that the sessions court had made a mistake by ordering the SHO to file an FIR and that the ASJ had misunderstood the Lalita Kumari case ruling. Additionally, it was claimed that the ASJ did not issue a notice in response to the complainant’s criminal revision petition. The petitioners’ argument was that if given a chance to be heard, they could have presented the correct interpretation of the law and facts to the court.
Justice Mahajan noted that during the consideration of section 156(3) application under CrPC, the accused is not considered an aggrieved party entitled to a hearing.
The court stated that a suspect does not have the right to appear or participate when the court is deciding whether to order the registration of an FIR. Additionally, the police are not required to hear the suspect at the time of registering the FIR. However, once an order is issued, certain rights are acquired or lost by the parties involved. The court added that these rights cannot be taken away without notifying or giving the opportunity for a hearing to the party whose rights are affected by the challenge to the order.
The court canceled the challenged order and allowed the parties to approach the relevant court to schedule a hearing. In a separate case from last year, the High Court had directed the filing of an FIR against Shahnawaz Hussain for allegedly raping a woman. The BJP leader’s SLP against the High Court’s ruling was rejected by the Supreme Court earlier this year.
Source: https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/delhi-high-court-registration-fir-bjp-leader-shahnawaz-hussain-brother-alleged-rape-case-223154?infinitescroll=1