Delhi court rejects police report to cancel rape FIR against BJP leader Shahnawaz Hussain, summons him

Delhi Court Tuesday summoned Bihar BJP leader Shahnawaz Hussain in a case of rape and criminal intimidation against him. While hearing a protest petition filed against the cancellation report of the police, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Vaibhav Mehta ruled in favour of the complainant.

The court directed Hussain to appear before it on October 20.

‘Unless IO [Investigating Officer] brings such material on record to establish that there is no possibility that she could have been raped, this court has no reason to throw out her case at the outset,’ said Judge Mehta while rejecting the cancellation report of the police.

Calling the complainant’s statements in a rape case the ‘most clinching peice of evidence’, the court ruled that she remained consistent in her allegations against Hussain. Responding to the arguments of the police which alleged improvements made by the complainant over time, Judge Mehta said that ‘minor contradictions’ in the statements of the complainant cannot be a ground to cancel the complaint against Hussain.

‘At this stage, the court taking cognisance is only required to see whether prima-facie an offence appears to have been committed or not and not to test the authenticity of witnesses and see whether there is sufficient material on record to secure guilt of the accused,’ the court noted, adding that the authenticity of the complainant’s statements can only be checked during the stage of trial.

‘…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,’ said Judge Mehta, relying on Supreme Court judgements.

The complainant alleged that in April 2018, Shahnawaz took her to a farmhouse and raped her after intoxicating her.

She further alleged that he made a video of the act and threatened to kill her and her family if she ever disclosed the act. She further alleged that she hesitated to take legal action against the accused as his actions had put her into depression for a long time.

Earlier, the police had filed a cancellation report in favour of Hussain, stating that according to their investigation, no ‘prima facie offence’ was made out against the accused. A delay of four-five years in lodging of the FIR was cited among one of the reasons for cancellation. The police also relied on the call detail record (CDR), which revealed that the accused was not present with the complainant at the same place at any given time of the alleged date when the incident occurred.

In her protest petition filed against the cancellation report, the complainant alleged that the police only had the objective of closing the complaint against the accused. She further alleged that the FIR was filed against Hussain after a delay of five years only after receiving directions from the courts.

The complainant further argued that the IO was ‘hand in glove’ with the accused. She also submitted that the police had ‘deliberately’ failed to procure evidence regarding the movement of the accused when the incident occurred. In her petition, she also said that the accused can not be exonerated solely based on the call detail records.