ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, INTER CLASS MOOT, MARCH 2019 CODE: 1414

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

WRIT PETITION

WRIT NO._____OF 2019

UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973.

RAJAN…………………………………………………………………….…….PETITIONER

V.

STATE………………….……………..…………….….………………...........RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICE OF HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

SHREYA SINGH

ROLL NO. - 1414

 ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, INTER CLASS MOOT, MARCH 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………….…………..…………2

Index of Authorities……………………………………………………….…………….……...3

Statement of Jurisdiction……………………………………………….……………………….5

Statement of Facts…………………………………………………………………………..…..6

Statement of Issues……………………………………………….……………………………..7

Summary of Arguments ……………………………………………………………………….8

Arguments Advanced…………………………………………………………………………..9

1. ISSUE 1: THAT THE FIR REGISTERED BY SADHNA MUST BE QUASHED

UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973.

Prayer………………………………………………………………………………….……….16

1
 ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, INTER CLASS MOOT, MARCH 2019

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

And
&

¶ Paragraph

A.I.R All India Reporter

AP Andhra Pradesh
Art. Article

Bom Bombay
CLT Cuttuck Law Times
CrLJ Criminal Law Journal
ed. Edition

Hon’ble Honorable

IPC Indian Penal Code

Ltd. Limited

LW Law Weekly
M.P Madhya Pradesh
Mad Madras
Mys Mysore
Ori Orissa
P. Page

Pat Patna
S.C. Supreme Court

S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases

S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports

v. Versus

2
 ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, INTER CLASS MOOT, MARCH 2019

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LEGISLATIONS REFERRED

 THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

 THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

 THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.

BOOKS REFFERED

 DR. HARI SINGH GOUR, PENAL LAW OF INDIA, (11th ed. Vol 4)
 K.D. GAUR, COMMENTARY ON THE IPC, (2nd ed.)
 PROF. S.N. MISHRA, INDIAN PENAL CODE, (19th ed, 2013)
 RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, INDIAN PENAL CODE, (32nd ed, 2010)
 RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE CODE OR CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE,
(15th ed, 2010)
 S.R. MYNENI, HINDU LAW FAMMILY LAW , (1ST ed., 2012)
 H.K SAHARAY, FAMILY LAW IN INDIA, (2011 edn.)

LEXICONS

1. BLACKS LAW LEXICON, 7TH ED. 1999

2. OXFORD DICIONARY, 8TH ED.
3. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 8TH ED.
4. WHARTONS’ LAW LEXICON, 15TH ED.

CASE LAWS REFFERED

1. Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1991 SC 31: (1990) 4 SCC 692.
2. Bishnu vs. State, 1982 CrLJ 493, 495 (Ori-DB): 53 (1982) CLT 380.
3. Damodar Prasad, AIR 1972 SC 622; Arpan Joeseph, AIR 1973 SC 1
4. Deena vs. State of Karnataka, 1987 (1) Crimes 518 (Kant).

3
 ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, INTER CLASS MOOT, MARCH 2019

5. Dildar Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2006 CrLJ 3914 (3915): AIR 2006 SC 3084: 2006 AIR
SCW 4247: 2006 (46) All Ind Cas 713: 2006 (3) Crimes 293.
6. Empror vs. Nazir Ahmed, (1944) 47 Bom LR 245: (1945) 26 Lah 1: 71 IA 203
7. Girish Yadav vs State of MP, (1996) 8 SCC 186: 1996 SCC (Cri) 552
8. Hari Singh vs. State, 2008 CrLJ 2133 (2139) (Uttra-DB).
9. Jagannath Narayan Nikam vs. State of Maharashtra, 1995 CrLJ 795 (Bom): 1995 (1)
Bom Cr 570.
10. Krishnan vs. State, AIR 2003 SC 2978: (2003) 7 SCC 50: (2003) 3 Crimes 197: 2003
CrLJ 3705 (3709) (SC)
11. Mahindra Nath Das vs. Pub Prosecutor, 1979 CrLJ 1465 (Cal).

12. Mhipalpur Co.op Society Ltd. Vs. Prabhati, AIR 1986 Del 94, 98.
13. Nagwwa v. Veeranna Konjalgi, AIR 1976 SC 1947.
14. Nalli vs. state, 1993 CrLJ 409 (Mad-DB).
15. Narayan Dutta vs. State, 1980,CrLJ 264 (Cal).
16. Raj Kapoor v. State, AIR 1980 SC 258,

17. Ramjibhai Morarbhai Patel v. Additional Development, (1993) 2 GLR 1713.

18. Ranveer vs. State of Rajasthan, 1991 (2) Crimes 538, 540 (Raj-DB).
19. Satish Mehra v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi and Anr,. AIR 2013 SC 506.
20. Sayed Ahmed vs. State of Maharashtra, 1995 CrLJ 3585 (Bom-DB): (1995) 97 Bom LR
435.
21. Sheikh Hasib vs. State of Bihar, (1972) 4 SCC 773: AIR 1972 SC 283
22. State of Maharashtra vs. Prabhu Barku Gade, 1995 CrLJ 1432 (Bom-DB).
23. State of HP vs. Ritu Raj, 1992 (1) Crimes 311, 315 (HP-DB).
24. State of Orissa vs. Dillip Kumar Chand, 1987 CrLJ 1242 (Ori-DB).
25. State of Punjab vs Sarwan Singh, 1981 CrLJ 722 (SC): AIR 1981 SC 722 (SC).
26. State of UP v. R.K. Srivastava, AIR 1989 SC 2222.
27. State of UP vs. Harban Sahai, 1998 SCC (Cri) 1412 (1416): (1998) 6 SCC 50
28. State vs. Dwari Behera, 1976 CrLJ 262 (Ori).
29. Thulia Kali, AIR 1973 SC 501.

4
 ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, INTER CLASS MOOT, MARCH 2019

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER HAS APPROACHED ETHE

HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA , UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973.

The above section reads as:

Saving of inherent powers of High Court. - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or

affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give

effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise

to secure the ends of justice.

5
 ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, INTER CLASS MOOT, MARCH 2019

STATEMENT OF FACTS

It is Respectfully Showeth,

1. Rajan is an NRI settled in Canada. He had goneabroad from India along with his father

Mohan when he was about 3 yeards old. Rajan’s grandfather Jagmohan expired in December

2011.

2. Rajan had visited India along with Mohan to perform the last rites of his grandfather. Rajan

and Mohan stayed in Mahan’s real brother Sohan’s house.

3. In 2017, Moahn filed a civil suit seeking partition of his share in the ancestral property left

behind by Jagmohan.

4. An FIR was registered under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012, Sections 354 A and 509 of the IPC, on the statement of Sadhna, who is the

daughter of Sohan.

5. Sadhna has alleged that Rajan has tried to outrage her modesty. Presently, Sadhna is about 25

years old whereas Rajan is about 29 years old.

6. Rajan has approached the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court for quashing of the FIR

under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

6
 ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, INTER CLASS MOOT, MARCH 2019

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER THE FIR REGISTERED BY SADHNA BE QUASHED UNDER SECTION

468 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973

1.1. That the case is not maintainable on account of delayed filing of FIR.

1.2 That the Complainant has exceeded the period of limitation for filing the FIR under Section
468 of the CrPC, 1973.

1.3 Thirdly, the FIR is an attempt of malicious prosecution on part of the Complainant.

7
 ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, INTER CLASS MOOT, MARCH 2019

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THAT THE FIR REGISTERED BY SADHNA MUST BE QUASHED UNDER section

482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973.

It is humbly submitted that in the present case the Complainant has lodged the FIR in an
extremely delayed manner with mala fide intent which is evident from the factual matrix of the
case. The Complaint in the instant case is the daughter of Sohan, who is the real brother of
Mohan (father of the Accused). Both Sohan and Mohan have a suit pending over an ancestral
property dispute. The suit was filed by Mohan and it would be correct to say that the FIR filed is
very much a possible tactic to harass the Accused and his father in order to claim the entire
property as the FIR was filed post filing of the Suit.

The prompt and early reporting of the occurrence to the police with all its vivid details gives an
assurance regarding truth of the prosecution version. A prompt FIR eliminated chances of
embellishments and false implication of accused persons, greatly diminishes the chances of false
implication as well as that of the informant being tutored, eliminates chances of embellishment
in prosecution case and also false implication of accused persons.

In the present case, petition is filed to quash the proceedings going in trial court as it is the settled
principle of criminal jurisprudence that the criminal law may be set in motion by giving
information to the police of a cognizable offence. However, proceedings can be said to have
been instituted within the language of criminal law when actually criminal proceedings are
instituted in the Court of law and not otherwise.

8
 ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, INTER CLASS MOOT, MARCH 2019

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THAT THE FIR REGISTERED BY SADHNA MUST BE QUASHED UNDER

SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Rajan (hereinafter referred to as the
“Accused”) is not guilty of sexual assault1 under section 82 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act “) and outraging the modesty under Section 354A3
read with Section 5094 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 of Sadhna (hereinafter referred to as
the “Complainant”). The FIR registered on the statement of the Complainant is a fictitious act
on grouds of personal vendetta and in order to harass the Accused. Hence, the FIR must be
quashed by exercising the powers vested in this Hon’ble Court under Section 482 5 of the
Crimonal Procedure Code, 1973 (“CrPC”). Therefore, the submission of the cousel for
Petitioner towards this is threefold:-

Firstly, That the case is not maintainable on account of delayed filing of FIR.

1
Section 2 (i) read with Section 7 of The POCSO Act, 2012: Whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis,
anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other
person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to
commit sexual assault.
2
Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012: Punishment for Sexual Assault - Whoever, commits sexual assault, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may
extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.
3
Section 354 A of the IPC: Sexual Harassment and punishment for Sexual Harassment: A man committing any of
the following acts—
i. physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or
ii. a demand or request for sexual favours; or
iii. showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
iv. making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.
2. Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (I) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (I) shall be
punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
3. Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (I) shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both
4
Section 509 of the IPC : Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.—Whoever, intending to
insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that
such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon
the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or
with fine, or with both.
5
Section 482 of The CrPC: Saving of inherent powers of High Court. - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit
or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order
under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

9
 ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, INTER CLASS MOOT, MARCH 2019

Secondly, That the Complainant has exceeded the period of limitation for filing the FIR under
Section 468 of the CrPC, 1973.

Thirdly, the FIR is an attempt of malicious prosecution on part of the Complainant.

1.1 That the case is not maintainable on account of delayed filing of FIR.

That in the present case the Complainant has lodged the FIR in an extremely delayed manner
with mala fide intent which is evident from the factual matrix of the case. The Complaint in the
instant case is the daughter of Sohan, who is the real brother of Mohan (father of the Accused).
Both Sohan and Mohan have a suit pending over an ancestral property dispute. The suit was filed
by Mohan and it would be correct to say that the FIR filed is very much a possible tactic to
harass the Accused and his father in order to claim the entire property as the FIR was filed post
filing of the Suit.

Section 154 of the CrPC reads as follows:

154. Information in cognizable cases.

(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally
to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his
direction, and be read Over to the informant; and every such information, whether given
in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and
the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as
the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.

(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub- section (1) shall be given forthwith,
free of cost, to the informant.

(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police
station to record the information referred to in subsection (1) may send the substance of
such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who,
if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall
either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police

10
 ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, INTER CLASS MOOT, MARCH 2019

officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall
have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.

The principle object of the FIR from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law
in motion and from the point of view of the investigating authorities is to obtain information
about the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps to trace and bring to
book the guilty.

To set the law in motion FIR is lodged with the view to set in the investigative process in motion
and not for the purpose of setting down on paper all known facts and circumstances about the
incident6. It does not constitute substantive evidence;7 It can, however, be used as a previous
statement for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction of its maker under S 157 or S 145 of
the Indian Evidence Act8.

The provisions as to an information report are enacted to obtain early information of alleged
criminal activity, to record the circumstances before there is time for them to be forgotten or
embellished and the report can be put in evidence when the informant is examined if it is desired
to do so9. FIR cannot be relied upon when it lacks spontaneity10.

The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain early information regarding
the circumstances in which the crime was committed as the delay is likely to coloured version11.
When complaint is received after the commencement of the investigation it cannot be relied upon
as FIR12.

The prompt and early reporting of the occurrence to the police with all its vivid details gives an
assurance regarding truth of the prosecution version 13 . A prompt FIR eliminated chances of

6
State of Orissa vs. Dillip Kumar Chand, 1987 CrLJ 1242 (Ori-DB).
7
Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1991 SC 31: (1990) 4 SCC 692.
8
Sheikh Hasib vs. State of Bihar, (1972) 4 SCC 773: AIR 1972 SC 283; Damodar Prasad, AIR 1972 SC 622;
Arpan Joeseph, AIR 1973 SC 1; State vs. Dwari Behera, 1976 CrLJ 262 (Ori); Mhipalpur Co.op Society Ltd. Vs.
Prabhati, AIR 1986 Del 94, 98.
9
Empror vs. Nazir Ahmed, (1944) 47 Bom LR 245: (1945) 26 Lah 1: 71 IA 203; Thulia Kali, AIR 1973 SC 501.
10
Ranveer vs. State of Rajasthan, 1991 (2) Crimes 538, 540 (Raj-DB).
11
Bishnu vs. State, 1982 CrLJ 493, 495 (Ori-DB): 53 (1982) CLT 380.
12
Narayan Dutta vs. State, 1980,CrLJ 264 (Cal).
13
State of UP vs. Harban Sahai, 1998 SCC (Cri) 1412 (1416): (1998) 6 SCC 50; Girish Yadav vs State of MP,
(1996) 8 SCC 186: 1996 SCC (Cri) 552

11
 ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, INTER CLASS MOOT, MARCH 2019

embellishments and false implication of accused persons 14, greatly diminishes the chances of
false implication as well as that of the informant being tutored 15 , eliminates chances of
embellishment in prosecution case and also false implication of accused persons 16. The object of
insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the
circumstances in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and
the parts played by them as also the names of the eyewitnesses, if any17.

In the case of Dildar Singh v. State of Punjab, The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that

“An unexplained inordinate delay in filing FIR is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Where
complaint was lodged after 7 years, it was held to be inordinate delay”18.

Where the lodging of the report is delayed, it not only gets benefits of its spontaneity, danger
also creeps in the introduction of coloured version, thought out stories and twists of actual
facts19.

In case of rape cases, undue delay in lodging FIR without acceptable evidence may contribute to
the doubt in the prosecution case20. However, in the present case the delay was not attributable to
any mental fear or stigma that the complainant was hesitant in lodging the FIR but out of
personal grudges arising out of a family feud. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the
inordinate and unreasonable delay in filing the FIR must be considered and the FIR be quashed.

1.2 That the Complainant has exceeded the period of limitation for filing the FIR under
Section 468 of the CrPC, 1973.

The Counsel for the Petitioner humbly submits that in the present matter the delay attributable on
behalf of the Complainant exceeds the prescribed period of limitation for filing of FIR. The FIR
filed in the instant case is a well thought and extensively manipulated by the Complainant and

14
Krishnan vs. State, AIR 2003 SC 2978: (2003) 7 SCC 50: (2003) 3 Crimes 197: 2003 CrLJ 3705 (3709) (SC);
State of Maharashtra vs. Prabhu Barku Gade, 1995 CrLJ 1432 (Bom-DB).
15
Jagannath Narayan Nikam vs. State of Maharashtra, 1995 CrLJ 795 (Bom): 1995 (1) Bom Cr 570.
16
Sayed Ahmed vs. State of Maharashtra, 1995 CrLJ 3585 (Bom-DB): (1995) 97 Bom LR 435.
17
Hari Singh vs. State, 2008 CrLJ 2133 (2139) (Uttra-DB).
18
Nalli vs. state, 1993 CrLJ 409 (Mad-DB).
19
State of HP vs. Ritu Raj, 1992 (1) Crimes 311, 315 (HP-DB).
20
Dildar Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2006 CrLJ 3914 (3915): AIR 2006 SC 3084: 2006 AIR SCW 4247: 2006 (46)
All Ind Cas 713: 2006 (3) Crimes 293.

12
 ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, INTER CLASS MOOT, MARCH 2019

Sohan to get the Accused and Mohan out of their way and dilute their claims over the ancestral
property.

According to Section 468 of the CrPC, 1973:

468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.

(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance
of an offence of the category specified in sub- section (2), after the expiry of the period of
limitation.

(2) The period of limitation shall be-

(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only.

(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one
year;

(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for term exceeding one
year but not exceeding three years.

(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation in relation to offences which
may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is
punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe
punishment.

It is of the utmost importance that any prosecution whether by the State or private complainant
must abide by the letter or law or take the risk of the prosecution failing on the ground of
limitation21. The object of this section in putting a bar of limitation on prosecution is clearly to
prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time as a result of which material evidence may
vanish and also to prevent the filing of vexatious and belated prosecutions22. Section 468 is free
from any constitutional infirmity and does not conflict with the Limitation Act23.

21
Deena vs. State of Karnataka, 1987 (1) Crimes 518 (Kant).
22
State of Punjab vs Sarwan Singh, 1981 CrLJ 722 (SC): AIR 1981 SC 722 (SC).
23
Mahindra Nath Das vs. Pub Prosecutor, 1979 CrLJ 1465 (Cal).

13
 ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, INTER CLASS MOOT, MARCH 2019

A period of limitation has been prescribed under S 468 and the court is enjoined not to take
cognizance of an offence specified in sub section (2) after the expiry of the period of limitation.
The provisions of section 468, CrPC are mandatory, cognizance taken beyond the period of
limitation, the consequent trial leading to conviction are without jurisdiction and non-est in the
eye of law24.

EXPIRY OF LIMITATION

Taking cognizance after the period of limitation has expired is illegal25.Cognizance taken beyond
the period of limitation prescribed under this section without an application by the prosecution to
condone the delay is illegal26. Where the period of limitation is three years for taking cognizance
of an offence in view of the provisions section 468 (2) (c) CrPC, cognizance taken after the
expiry of 3 years was held barred by time.

DETERMINATION OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION

For determining the period of limitation the extent of Imprisonment prescribed for the offence
alone should be taken into account and considered27.

Henceforth, it is humble submission on behalf of the Petitioner that the FIR filed in the present
case suffers from irreparable procedural defaults and defects and has no substance to support the
allegations raised by the complaint. While the investigation process still continues there is no
doubt that the FIR was filed on false grounds.

1.3 That the FIR is an attempt of malicious prosecution on part of the Complainant.

In the present case, petition is filed to quash the proceedings going in trial court as it is the settled
principle of criminal jurisprudence that the criminal law may be set in motion by giving
information to the police of a cognizable offence. However, proceedings can be said to have

24
Lakpa Sherpa vs. State of Sikkim, 2004 CrLJ 3488 (3491) (Sikkim); Kecijo Coconut Oils Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala,
2002 CrLJ 1087: 2002 (2) Crimes 147 (149) (Ker) (Cognizance illegal unless delay condoned under Sec 473 CrPC).
25
Haradhan Purohit vs. Mahadev Mohapatra, 1988 (1) Crimes 549 (Ori); Sameer Nayar vs. State of Punjab, 2008
CrLJ 4528 (4532) (P&H).
26
Jagannath vs. State, 1983 CrLJ 1748 (Mad).
27
Beena Alexander Kurian vs. Alexander Kurian, (1990) CrLJ 2641 (Kar).

14
 ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, INTER CLASS MOOT, MARCH 2019

been instituted within the language of criminal law when actually criminal proceedings are
instituted in the Court of law and not otherwise.28

Now, it is significant to mention that in the present case, Hon’ble High Court can use its inherent
power to quash the proceedings because it is a settled position of law that High Court can quash
the proceedings instituted against the accused if charges mentioned in FIR, even if accepted in its
entirety, do not, in any manner, disclose the commission of the offence alleged against the
accused.29

In simple words, if facts and circumstances of the case, do not disclose the commission of the
offence alleged against the accused in the FIR, court can quash the criminal proceedings
instituted on the basis of such FIR.30

Supreme Court clearly held that, in cases where the allegations made in the FIR or the criminal
complaint, prima facie do not disclose a triable offence, there can be reason as to why the
accused should be made to suffer the agony of a legal proceeding which is bound to become
lame or a sham.31

In the instant matter there are no specific and clear grounds to show case that the FIR was filed
without any unreasonable delay rather was filed because of the following reasons:

a) Mala fide intent to unnecessarily harass and malign the identity of the Accused.
b) Motive- Filing of the FIR with such grave allegations on the Accused would weaken the
suit instituted by the Accused along with his father.

Therefore, it is humble submission on behalf of the Petitioner that the inherent powers to quash
the FIR be exercised and invoked by the Hob’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

28
Ramjibhai Morarbhai Patel v. Additional Development, (1993) 2 GLR 1713.
29
Satish Mehra v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi and Anr,. AIR 2013 SC 506.
30
State of UP v. R.K. Srivastava, AIR 1989 SC 2222.
31
Ibid at 29; See also: Raj Kapoor v. State, AIR 1980 SC 258, Nagwwa v. Veeranna Konjalgi, AIR 1976 SC 1947.

15
 ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, INTER CLASS MOOT, MARCH 2019

PRAYER

IN THE LIGHT OF ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED & AUTHORITIES CITED,

THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER HUMBLY PRAYS TO THIS HON’BLE COURT TO

KINDLY ADJUDGE & DECLARE:

 That The Writ of Certiorari be passed to quash the FIR invoking powers vested

under Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973

And pass any other appropriate order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.

And for this act of kindness, the counsel for the respondent, as in duty bound shall forever

pray.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

S/d ……………………………

(PETITIONER COUNSEL)

16