The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the operation of a Delhi high court order relating to registration of a first information report (FIR) against Bharatiya Janata Party leader Shahnawaz Hussain on a woman's complaint alleging rape.
The high court on August 17 dismissed 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, and vacated its earlier interim order staying the operation.
The apex court issued notice and sought responses, including from the Delhi government, on Hussain's plea and posted it for hearing in the third week of September.
A bench headed by Justice UU Lalit observed that after hearing submissions of senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for Hussain, it is of the prima facie view that this matter requires consideration.
The bench, also comprising Justices SR Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia, said that pending further consideration, the effect and operation of the order under challenge before it shall remain stayed.
In 2018, a Delhi-based woman approached a lower court seeking registration of an FIR against Hussain on her allegation of rape.
A magisterial court had on July 7, 2018, ordered the registration of an FIR against Hussain, saying a cognisable offence was made out in the complaint of the woman.
This was challenged by the BJP leader before a sessions court which had dismissed his plea. Hussain has denied the allegations.
During the hearing on Monday, Rohatgi said "absolutely bogus allegations" have been made in the matter against the BJP leader.
The high court has proceeded on the assumption that the only manner of investigation can be post registration of FIR, he said, adding this is an incorrect interpretation of the law.
The counsel appearing for the woman said that after the high court passed the order, she was assaulted and was admitted to the AIIMS trauma centre.
Seeking protection for the complainant, the counsel alleged that the police were in connivance with the accused as they are powerful.
Rohatgi said the petitioner is a public figure and bogus allegations have been levelled against him.
The bench told the complainant's counsel that it will issue a notice in the matter and will pass an interim order of stay.
The top court said the complainant is at liberty to file an affidavit in response to the petition within two weeks.
"The complainant is at liberty to approach the concerned police station and if any application is made, the concerned police station shall look into the matter and afford every possible help and assistance including the police protection, if required," the bench said.
In its order, the high court had said, "There is no merit in the present petition. The petition is dismissed. The interim orders 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 said that while reference is made in the police 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.
