In the sexual harassment case filed against Brij Bhushan Singh by six female wrestlers, the Delhi’s Rouse Avenue court today ordered to hear the arguments afresh from January 4.
The transfer of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Harjeet Singh Jaspal, who heard the matter led to the decison.
The court noted that the arguments were heard by the earier judge and now the new judge needs to hear the before decising on the matter.
The earlier judge Justice Harjeet Singh Jaspal had heard the arguments by all concerned parties extensively but before the order could be reserved, he got transferred.
Delhi Police was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Atul Srivastava, who said that the court that the Wrestling Foundation of India (WFI) chief “knew what he was doing” and his intention was to outrage the modesty of the wrestlers.
The Additional Public Prosecutor also stated that there are three types of evidence against Sharan Singh which are enough to frame charges. These include a written complaint and two recorded statements under Sections 161 (examination of witnesses by the police) and 164 (statements recorded by a Magistrate) under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
APP said that it was in the jurisdiction of the court to frame charges against Brij Bhushan Singh.
He also countered the argument made by the WFI chief’s lawyer that sanction under Section 188 of the CrPC is required for cases that took place outside India.
On October 31, Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, former President of the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI), has questioned the jurisdiction of a Delhi court trying a sexual harassment case lodged against him by six female wrestlers on the grounds that no alleged incident or consequence took place in India.
Appearing for the BJP MP, Advocate Rajiv Mohan made the submission before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Harjeet Singh Jaspal of the Rouse Avenue Court on Monday, during the argument on whether to frame charges against Singh.
Advocate Mohan contended that since the alleged offences took place, as per the prosecution, at Tokyo, Mongolia, Bulgaria, Jakarta, Kazakhstan and Turkey, the same could not be tried by this court.
As per the counsel, the ACMM court had no ‘jurisdiction’ to try any offence, which had allegedly been committed outside India, in view of the fact that sanction under Section 188 CrPC had not been obtained.
The counsel appearing for the prosecution contended that the act of sexual harassment of victims was a continuing offence, as it did not stop at any particular time. The accused molested the victims whenever he got the opportunity and therefore, such harassment could not be looked at in isolated brackets and the series or the chain thereof needed to be seen as one, adde the prosecution counsel.
The ACMM then granted three weeks to the parties to file their written arguments so they could be concluded in a systematic manner and listed the matter for hearing on November 22.