A Delhi court has stayed the summons issued to Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Syed Shahnawaz Hussain by a magisterial court in a case of alleged rape and threats.
Special judge M.K. Nagpal of the Rouse Avenue Court was hearing a revision petition filed by Hussain against an order of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vaibhav Mehta, who had directed him to appear before it on October 20 after taking cognisance of the offences of rape (punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code) and criminal intimidation (section 506).
Mehta had issued summons against Hussain on the complainant woman’s protest petition against the police's cancellation report.
The complainant had relied on the Supreme Court judgements, which showed the court that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if reliable, is sufficient to convict the accused.
"... so it is safe to say that the consistent sole testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient to summon the accused and to take the case to trial," Mehta had noted.
Before the special court, Hussain has claimed that Mehta took cognisance of the offences “merely on the basis of statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. made by the prosecutrix, though there is sufficient other oral or documentary evidence on record to show that no such incident of intoxication or rape of the prosecutrix actually took place”.
Now, judge Nagpal has also issued notice to the complainant on the petition and has sought her response by November 8.
“Notice of the revision petition is directed to be issued to both the respondents by all the prescribed modes for November 8, 2023 and it is directed that notice of respondent no. 2, i.e. prosecutrix, be served through the IO (investigating officer). In view of the submissions being made by Counsel representing the petitioner, it is also being directed that till then, the operation of impugned order and further proceedings in the case shall remain stayed,” the judge said.
The complainant had alleged she was administered an intoxicant by Hussain who then raped her at a farmhouse in the national capital in April 2018.
The police had filed a report before the court seeking cancellation of the FIR, against which, the woman complainant filed a protest petition.
Mehta had dismissed the police report, saying the issues raised by the Investigating Officer while filing the cancellation report are matters which can be decided during trial.
Earlier, the Delhi High Court had set aside a session court's order to register a FIR against Shahnawaz and his brother Shahbaz Hussain.
Justice Amit Mahajan remanded the matter back to the session's court for a fresh decision after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
The bench had noted that Hussain and his brother were not heard by the trial court while directing the registration of FIR under Sections 420, 376, 295A, 493, 496, 506, 509, 511 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
The court had noted that earlier the Metropolitan Magistrate by June 25, 2018 order, in an application filed by the woman under Section 156(3) of Code Of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , had refused to direct the police to register an FIR.
Later the Sessions Judge by the impugned order on May 31, 2022, while setting aside the said order, directed the SHO Mandir Marg to register an FIR.
The complainant had alleged that while she was running an NGO, she encountered Shahbaz, who introduced himself as the brother of Shahnawaz Hussain, an MP and after being highly impressed by the former, she developed intimacy with him.
He promised her that he would marry her and allegedly raped her, the complainant said.
She did not highlight the matter at first as she was concerned about her dignity and reputation, but was shocked on knowing that Shahbaz was already married and was a father of two children.
She then visited his brother's residence seeking support and justice from him, and narrated the entire story to him.
The complaint stated that Shahnawaz had asked her not to highlight the matter and raise a hue and cry as it would be detrimental to both parties.
She has alleged that Shahbaz married her in the presence of a Maulavi and some other persons, and that she was forced to sign a certificate of marriage post which she was abandoned by them.
It later turned out that the maulavi and the certificate were fake.
She has alleged that she had received calls threatening her using foul language.
© 2024 IANS. All rights reserved.