Shahnawaz Hussain, a leader of the BJP, has appealed to the Supreme Court a Delhi High Court decision ordering the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) in a rape charge made against him (Syed Shahnawaz Hussain v. The State).
On Thursday morning, the appeal was heard by a bench consisting of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices CT Ravikumar, and Hima Kohli.
Since Hussain’s “reputation” was at risk, the attorney recommended that the appeal be heard as soon as possible.
Court then decided to take up the case next week.
According to a complaint received to the police commissioner that detailed the commission of rape after the administration of a stupefying chemical, single-judge Asha Menon of the Delhi High Court stated that the police had an explanation for not having filed an FIR against Hussain.
The single judge made these views while listening to an appeal of a Special Judge’s decision upholding the MM’s orders requiring the registration of an FIR.
The charges made by the complainant were not supported by the investigation, the police had informed the MM. Despite this, the MM issued an order requiring the filing of an FIR in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh.
This judgement was subsequently upheld by the special judge.
Hussain subsequently went to the High Court, which again denied him redress, prompting him to file an appeal with the Supreme Court.
Hussain claims that the order of the High Court will cause “irreparable damage” to his spotless career and reputation in the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, it has been claimed that Hussain’s lawsuit was “false, frivolous, and mala fide” and was made to exact revenge.
“The petitioner is a public figure and is being sought to be wrongly and falsely implicated with a malicious intent and for malafide reasons and dishonest intention by the complainant,” the plea states.
It has been claimed that the complainant had previously slandered the BJP politician on websites like Facebook.
The police’s findings and reports, according to Hussain, are “startling” because they entirely exonerate the appellant.
The Metropolitan Magistrate requested a report from the police authorities, and the police authorities responded with a comprehensive investigation finding the allegations to be unfounded and untrue. The High Court refused to recognise this.