New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of a sessions court closing an alleged rape case filed against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and former Union minister Syed Shahnawaz Hussain by accepting the cancellation report filed by the Delhi Police last year.
High Court dismissed an appeal filed by alleged victim challenging acceptance of cancellation report
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the appeal filed by the alleged victim challenging a sessions court order accepting the cancellation report filed by the Delhi Police and quashing a summoning order passed by a magisterial court.
Why did complainant woman move High Court?
The cancellation report submitted by the State in a First Information Report (FIR) registered alleging the offence of rape and criminal intimidation by Hussain was not approved by a magisterial court, which took cognizance by the summoning order against which Hussain moved the sessions court, which set aside the magisterial court order and accepted the cancellation report. Aggrieved by the sessions court order, the complainant moved the High Court seeking setting aside of the sessions court order accepting the cancellation report.
What did complainant woman allege?
The complainant woman alleged that Hussain lured her to accompany him to his farmhouse in Chattarpur on the assurance of sorting out ongoing issues between her and his brother, where he gave her laced eatables because of which she lost her consciousness, taking advantage of which he raped her. She further alleged that Hussain then threatened her he has prepared explicit videos of her and he would show it to her relatives to tarnish her image and threatening her with dire consequences if she disclosed the incident to anyone.
What did High Court say?
The High Court noted that the order of magisterial court directing the registration of FIR against Hussain went right up to the Supreme Court where it did not find any favour and the FIR was eventually registered in regard to the alleged incident in 2018 i.e., after about five years. The High Court, however, rejected the contention of the petitioner that the commission of the offence has been upheld till the apex court, saying it is not correct as it is only the order of registration of FIR which was upheld.
“This is the point of investigations when all relevant facts are collected to ascertain whether the commission of offence is made out. The assertion of the petitioner (complainant) that the issues raised herein have already been upheld up to Apex Court is fallacious,” the High Court said.
Both had been at different locations on day of incident, making their presence together at alleged place impossible: High Court
The High Court also took note of the details of call detail record (CDR) of Hussain and observed that the location charts of the complainant and Hussain reflect that they both had been at different locations on the day of incident, making their presence together at the alleged place of incident impossible.
“In the present case, the overwhelming independent ocular, documentary and scientific evidence collected during the investigations, whereby the presence of the respondent no.2 (Hussain) and complainant on the date of the alleged incident at the place of alleged incident i.e. Sharma Farmhouse is completely ruled out, the possibility of the commission of alleged offence is rendered zilch. Hence, conclusion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in accepting the cancellation report has to be upheld,” the High Court said while upholding the sessions court order accepting the closure report filed by the Delhi Police.