On October 12, the SC will hear Shahnawaz Hussain's appeal of a Delhi High Court ruling in a 2018 rape case.

Syed Shahnawaz Hussains' plea in the Supreme Court challenged the Delhi High Courts decision to order the registration of an FIR against him in connection with the suspected 2018 rape trial . The top court had earlier halted all proceedings against Hussain in connection with an alleged 2018 rape lawsuit .

New Delhi, September 24: Syed Shahnawaz Hussain's plea in the Supreme Court challenged the Delhi High Court's decision to order the registration of an FIR against him in connection with the suspected 2018 rape trial, and a bench led by Chief Justice of India UU Lalit allowed the counsel for the original complainant to file documents from the trial court.According to the bench, the list subject will be heard on October 12, 2022.The top court had earlier halted all proceedings against Hussain in connection with an alleged 2018 rape lawsuit.The high court had also halted the prosecution of the other cases in connection with the case and also the Delhi High Court's order to register an FIR against him.The apex court also issued a notice to BJP leaders who oppose the High Court order.Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, a Hussain lawyer, told the top court on the last day of hearing that the High Court has proceeded on the assumption that the only alternative investigation is the investigation after the investigation report, which he said is a flawed form of the law.

The probes have been phased out, and a complete report under Section 173 CrPC must be submitted to the MM in three months, according to the High Court.Hussain filed an FIR against the defendant on July 7, 2018, and the Metropolitan Magistrate of Saket court ordered the recording of a rape FIR against the defendant, but Hussain fought it in the Sessions Court, but he was denied relief there.After this, he was referred to the High Court, where he had been raped and drugged by him on July 13, 2018.In the High Court, it was found that the police investigation was incomplete because Hussain was not at Chattarpur Farms at 10.30 pm, as the complainant alleged.The witnesses at the Farmhouse, however, contradicted this statement, and Hussains attorney argued that they were at the Farmhouse at 10.45 pm.Thus, the investigation had falsified her entire case, and the MM and the Special Judge had erred in ordering the FIR to be registered, and these orders were deemed invalid, and the FIR as well as the complaint lawsuit and all proceedings resulting therefrom should be quashed, according to the lawyer.