New Delhi, Nov 1 (NationPress) In a significant ruling, a Delhi court has granted Chandrashekhar, the MP from Nagina and President of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram), a major respite as it dismissed a woman doctor’s petition requesting the Delhi Police to initiate legal action against him for alleged sexual misconduct.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neha Mittal declined doctor Rohini Ghavari’s request for the SHO of PS-IGI Airport, New Delhi, to file a First Information Report (FIR) in this case.

“This Court believes that the applicant/complainant has not adhered to the necessary stipulation outlined in Section 173(4) BNSS. Consequently, the current application is not sustainable and is therefore dismissed,” stated ACJM Mittal.

Doctor Ghavari, who is based in Switzerland, claimed she endured a series of grave offenses inflicted by the accused, including repeated sexual assault under false pretenses of marriage, criminal threats, voyeurism, stalking, deception, misuse of technology, and threats to her life and dignity.

She alleged that during her first visit to India in October 2021, she was taken to the Pullman International Hotel, Aerocity, New Delhi, where she was forcibly assaulted against her will and confined in the hotel for several hours under false promises of marriage.

Despite filing a complaint with Police Station-IGI Airport, she claimed that the police failed to register the FIR and instead forwarded her complaint to PS-Parliament Street.

In her court application, doctor Ghavari argued that the inaction of the police constituted a violation of their duties.

While dismissing her request, the court noted, “A review of the application under Section 175(3) BNSS and the accompanying affidavit shows that the complainant did not indicate that she approached the DCP following the inaction of the concerned SHO.”

“This is a requisite condition for filing an application under Section 175(3) BNSS. The complainant must declare under oath not only the facts and allegations of the case but also confirm that she approached the police officials as per Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C./173(4) BNSS,” explained ACJM Neha Mittal.

The court further asserted, “Details regarding compliance with Section 154(3) Cr.P.C./173(4) BNSS are absent from the present application. Thus, no assertion regarding adherence to Section 173(4) BNSS has been made in the current application, nor has any complaint been directed to the relevant DCP before September 3, 2025 (the date of the affidavit).”