Court reserves order on framing of charges in sexual harassment case against Brij Bhushan Singh

The Rouse Avenue court on Thursday reserved its order on framing of charges in the sexual harassment case against Bharatiya Janata Party MP and former WFI Chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh for April 18.

The Rouse Avenue court on Thursday reserved its order on framing of charges in the sexual harassment case against Bharatiya Janata Party MP and former WFI Chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh for April 18. This case was lodged by Delhi Police after women wrestlers had approached the Supreme Court.

BJP MP is accused of Sexual Harassment of women wrestlers and the matter is at the stage of framing of charges. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Priyanka Rajpoot reserved an order on framing of charges after hearing submissions in the sexual harassment case. The court is likely to pronounce the order on April 18.

Some documents were filed by Delhi police and the complainants' counsel. The court has granted time to counsel for the accused to file rebuttal submissions. Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Srivastava had submitted that the alleged offences committed by the accused were in continuity and there was commonality in the same.

He had also submitted that there is sufficient material to frame charges against the accused persons. The court has to see whether there is prima facie evidence to frame charges or not at this stage. The court needs not to go deep into the evidence at the stage of framing of charges, APP submitted.

Advocate Rajiv Mohan along with Rishabh Bhati and Rehan Khan appeared for Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. Advocate Rajiv Mohan had submitted that the oversight committee (OC) was formed by the government under the provision of the PoSH Act.

The committee had recorded the statement in connection with allegations levelled by the complainants, defence counsel submitted. Statements recorded before OC are previous statements, he added. He also argued that there were contradictions in the statement of a complainant in relation to the time and place of the incidents.

Earlier, it was argued that there was a delay in reporting the alleged offences. It is also contended that there are contradictions in the affidavit and statement of complaint. Counsel Rajiv Mohan had also argued that there was a long delay in reporting the alleged offences. The incident of 2012 was reported to the police in 2023. The statement given before the Oversight Committee can't be brushed aside, he argued.

Counsel for the accused also argued that the alleged incident took place at different times and places and there is no link between the incidents. It was argued that women wrestlers started their Protest on January 18, 2023, in New Delhi.

On 23 January Oversight committee was formed by the government. It filed its report on April 5. On April 21, 2023, six complaints were filed in Police Station Connaught Place. The FIR was lodged on April 28. There is no link in the complaints. Time and place are different but allegations are against one person, the counsel argued. There is no connection among the complainants, he added.

It was also contended that the requirement for invoking section 354 IPC is criminal force and assault. This section was added as it is punishable with 5 years and it is not time barred. On the point of jurisdiction, the accused's counsel submitted that the Offences committed in Delhi can be tried by this court.

On the point of delay, he contended that the reason for the delay was stated by one of the complainants that her career was at stake, therefore she kept silent. Advocate Rajiv Mohan argued that before the Oversight committee, no incident of 2016 was mentioned. Incident mentioned in the Complaint is of 2015 of Turkey. 2016 incident of Mangolia was reported in 2023 in Delhi.

He argued that affidavit and statement before the oversight committee is part of judicial record and the statement given before it can't be brushed aside. It was also argued that Coach Kuldeep had recommended action against the complainant in relation to indiscipline. The accused had taken action against her. It is relied upon document of prosecution, Mohan said.

He also argued that the information was concealed by the complainant. You concealed that you were not allowed to play in 48 kg category as your weight was found more than it. "You alleged sexual harrasment as I (accused) took disciplinary action against you," counsel argued.

He also pointed out towards the lacunae in a statement related to the incident of Mangolia as the name of the hotel is not mentioned. There's a reason behind the allegations and the protests. Can we simply start the trial on the basis of whatever documents the prosecution submits, the counsel argued.

On the point of continuity, he argued that Mongolia incident is of 2016, WFI offence is separate from Mongolia incident. Without sanctions under 188, this case can't continue. You have to show the connecting link between the offences, the counsel added. There is a time limitation and chargesheet should have been filed within three years of the offence, Rajiv Mohan submitted.

There must not be a large time gap to concoct a false story. If you take a long time before complaining, he said Committee was constituted under the government order and the statement recorded there cannot be brushed aside, counsel argued.

Delhi police had filed a charge sheet against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and Vinod Tomar in 2023. (ANI)

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)