NEW DELHI: Delhi Police on Saturday urged a city court to frame charges against BJP MP and former WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh while concluding its arguments on the matter of an alleged sexual harassment case lodged against the latter by a group of women wrestlers. Before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Priyanka Rajpoot at Rouse Avenue Court, cops opposed Singh's argument that since some of the alleged incidents took place overseas, they do not fall in the jurisdiction of courts in the national capital.
It was submitted by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Srivastava, representing the Police, that the incidents of sexual harassment, allegedly committed by Singh, overseas and inside India, including Delhi, are part of the same offence. "Delhi court has jurisdiction to try this case," Police told the court.
The matter will be further heard on January 20 and 23 when the court is scheduled to hear the submissions of counsel for the complainants.
The APP also argued that in order to attract the section on sexual harassment, intention is not required and merely knowledge is sufficient.
It was also submitted by the APP that accused Brij Bhushan's statement which contended that he was acting in a fatherly manner while checking the breathing patterns of female wrestlers pointing out that he was aware of his act.
The cops also said the sexual harassment case is not time-barred as Section 354 of the IPC has been invoked while defending the delay in the complaint against the former WFI chief.
Earlier, APP Srivastava had submitted that there was enough evidence to frame charges, including under 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354-A (sexual harassment), and 354-D (stalking) of IPC, against Singh.
The sexual harassment case against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, a six-time MP, was moved by a group of woman wrestlers followed by massive protests backed by the country's top wrestlers including Olympic medallists like Sakshi Malik, Vinesh Phogat, and Bajrang Punia.
Singh had argued "material contradictions" in prosecution witnesses, saying it can take the case away from "grave suspicion" to only "mere suspicion.
