Modern Law College

8th ShankakrraoKanitkar State Level Moot Court Competition

Jikdm IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

THE CASE CONCERNING QUASHING OF FIR/RCN

MR. FALANA SINGH & FAMILY

STATE & MRS. MANPREET KAUR

ON SUBMISSIONTO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

TO BE HEARD ON 11TH JANUARY, 2014

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 1

 Modern Law College
8th ShankakrraoKanitkar State Level Moot Court Competition

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. CONTENTS Page No.

No.
1. INDEX OF AUTHORITES 4-5

2. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 6

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7

4. STATEMENT OF ISSUES 8

5. SUMMARY OF FACTS 9-10

6. BODY OF PLEADINGS 11-16

7. PRAYER 17

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 2

 Modern Law College
8th ShankakrraoKanitkar State Level Moot Court Competition

INDEX OFAUTHORITIES

-TABLE OF CASES-

1. Maneka Gandhi V Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 579)

2. Poonam Singh V State & Others, 22nd August 2013

3. B.S.Joshi& Others V State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675

4. State of Haryana & Ors. V Bhajan Lal and Ors. (1992 AIR SCW 237)

5. Bombay Vs Kushal Das AIR 1950 SC 22

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 3

 Modern Law College
8th ShankakrraoKanitkar State Level Moot Court Competition

-BOOKS AND ARTICLES-

1. J.N.Pandey – Constitution of India, 44th Edition

2. Takwani – Criminal Procedure, 3rd Edition 2011 CK Thakkar “Takwani”

3. Dr.Suresh Mane - Leading Cases in Constitutional Law

4. K.D.Gaur - Textbook on The Indian Penal Code, 4th Edition
4. Bare Act - The Constitution of India, IPC, CrPC

-STATUTES APPLICABLE-

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860

2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3. The Constitution of India, 1949

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 4

 Modern Law College
8th ShankakrraoKanitkar State Level Moot Court Competition

LIST OFABBREVIATIONS

a) Sec Section
b) IPC Indian Penal Code
c) CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
d) FIR First Information Report
e) RCN Red Corner Notice
f) AIR All India Reporter
g) Hon’ble Honourable
h) SC Supreme Court
i) Ors. Others

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 5

 Modern Law College
8th ShankakrraoKanitkar State Level Moot Court Competition

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioners humbly submit this memorandum for a petitions filed before the Honourable High
Court. The petition invokes Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 6

 Modern Law College
8th ShankakrraoKanitkar State Level Moot Court Competition

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether does the jurisdiction lie?

2. Whether the writ of certiorari is applicable to quash the F.I.R.and RCN?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 7

 Modern Law College
8th ShankakrraoKanitkar State Level Moot Court Competition

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. Mr. Falana Singh (NRI) works in a Multi National Electronics Company at London, England.
2. He along with his parents, namely mother Mrs. Surinder Kaur and father Mr. Gurucharan
Singh, wanted an Indian bride and had therefore come to Amritsar, Punjab.
3. Amongst various alliances Mr. Falana Singh’s family choose Ms. Manpreet Kaur Sodhi,
daughter of Shri Vikram Singh Sodhi and Mrs. Savita Kaur Sodhi.
4. Their marriage was solemnized and registered on 04/02/2009 at Amritsar, Punjab.
5. The marriage expenses of Rupees Forteen lacs were borne by the parents of the bride.
6. Soon after the marriage, Mr. Falana Singh and his family members started demanding Rs. 5
lacs from the parents of Mrs. Manpreet Kaur for the expenses to take her to England.
7. Due to the partial fulfilment of the demand; they started mental torture and cruelty to
Manpreet Kaur.
8. The mother-in-law Mrs. Surinder Kaur against the will of Manpreet took away all the gold
ornaments that were given by the bridgrooms’s family under the pretext of carrying the same
to London for her.
9. Later Mr. Falana Singh’s sister Mrs. Sunanda Kaur Bhatti with the help of a doctor conducted
the virginity test of Mrs. Manpreet Kaur before the consummation of the marriage.
10. However, when Manpreet Kaur posed a question as to how was Falana Singh going to
estabish his virtue, to that the entire family reacted strongly. Thereafter Mr. Falana Singh and
Manpreet Kaur relocated to London, England on 15th May 2009.
11. Manpreet Kaur later demanded that her husband should help her brother to settle in London
and also to take care of her parents as they had spent their resourses considerably.
12. This and other factors led to frequent arguments and quarrels between them.
13. Mr. Falana Singh and his relatives subjected Manpreet Kaur to mental torture and harassment
due which Manpreet Kaur left her husband’s house without informing him and came to India
in December 2009.
14. Thereafter Mr. Falana Singh tried several times to contact Manpreet to come back to London,
which she refused.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 8

 Modern Law College
8th ShankakrraoKanitkar State Level Moot Court Competition

15. Once in India, Mrs. Manpreet Kaur lodged a complaint bearing FIR No. 189 dated
20/01/2010, at Amritsar Police Station under Sec. 498-A, 406 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code,
against Mr. Falana Singh and his relatives i.e. mother Mrs. Surinder Kaur and father Mr.
Gurucharan Singh.
16. Since the sister of the Mr. Falana Singh was staying in Amritsar, the charge-sheet came to be
filed agaisnt her only, wherein all the others were shown as absconding. Since they did not
appear before the
17. Investigating Authorities, the Authroirites issued a requisition for RCN (Red Corner Notice)
against the accused with the Interpol (International Police Organization).
18. Subsequently the case against the sister was tried, wherein the Complianant Mrs. Manpreet
Kaur deposed that she does not want to prosecute any further, hence the sister was acquited.
The Complainant had sought divorce and the same was granted ex-parte.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 9

 Modern Law College
8th ShankakrraoKanitkar State Level Moot Court Competition

BODY OF PLEADINGS

Issue No.1

1. Where will the jurisdiction lie?

This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case on hand because it is provided under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The remedy of Certiorari Writ is issued under Art 226.

A Writ of Certiorari is issued by a Superior Court (SC and HC) to an inferior court or body exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions to remove a suit from such inferior court or body and adjudicate
upon the validity of the proceedings or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. It may be
used before the trial to prevent an excess or abuse of jurisdiction and remove the case for trial to
higher court. It is invoked also after trial to quash an order which has been made without jurisdiction
or in violation of the rules of natural justice. Speaking on the scope of Writ the SC in the province of
Bombay Vs Kushal Das AIR 1950 SC 22 held that, whenever any body of persons having legal
authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects and having the duty to act judicially,
acts in excess of their legal authority, a Writ of Certiorari lies. It does not lie to remove merely
ministerial act or to remove or cancel executive administrative acts.

Grounds on which Writ can be issued: The Writ of Certiorari is issued to a judicial or quasi-judicial
body on following grounds:

a) Where there is want or excess of jurisdiction

b) Where there is violation of procedure or disregards of principles of natural justice
c) Where there is error of law apparent on the face of the records but not error of fact

The Article is given below:

Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in
relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 10

 Modern Law College
8th ShankakrraoKanitkar State Level Moot Court Competition

Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by Part III and for any other purpose

(2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or
person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within
which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat
of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories

(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other
manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause ( 1 ), without

(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim
order; and

(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of
such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or
the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from
the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished,
whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the
next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim
order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated

(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on
the Supreme court by clause ( 2 ) of Article 32

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 11

 Modern Law College
8th ShankakrraoKanitkar State Level Moot Court Competition

Issue No. 2

2. Whether the writ of certiorari is applicable in this case to quash the F.I.R.and RCN?

The Writ of Certiorari is being requested for quashing the FIR & RCN under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India which provides remedies for violation of fundamental rights of the citizens of
India.
Grounds on which Writ of Certiorari is requested:
a) where there is violation of procedure or disregards of principles of natural justice:

The principles of natural justice namely 1) the Court or tribunal should be free from bias and
interest, and 2) “audi alteram partem” i.e. the parties must be heard before the decision is given; are
the two basic principles on which justice is delivered.

b) personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India:

It is contented by the petitioner that Article 21 has been violated affecting personal liberty. A Free
and fair trial is a fundamental right of every citizen of the country.

In Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India, the SC ha not only overruled Gopalan’s case but has widened
the scope of the word “personal liberty” considerably.
Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) observed:

“The expression ‘personal liberty’ in Article 21 is of widest amplitude and it covers a variety of
rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have raised to the status of
distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19.”

The Courts lay down great stress on procedural safeguards. The procedures must satisfy the
requirement of natural justice, ie it must be just, fair and reasonable.

In the case on hand, Mr.Falana Singh and his parents have not been given a chance of hearing before
disposing the case for divorce submitted by Mrs.Manpreet Kaur and divorce was granted to her ex-
parte.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 12

 Modern Law College
8th ShankakrraoKanitkar State Level Moot Court Competition

c) freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India:

It is the contention of the petitioners that Article 19 (1) (d) has been violated in the case of Mr.Falana
Singh and his parents due to issue of Red Corner Notice by the authorities which has restricted them
from travelling internationally.

It is observed that the RCN was issued for extraneous reasons. The petitioner humbly submits that
since the divorce has been granted ex-parte, the purpose of RCN itself is questionable. Since the
matter pertaining to these offences is subjudiced, it will not be appropriate to comment on this aspect
but suffice it to say that the action against the petitioner for issuing RCN was uncalled for in view of
the fact that neither offence, for which the petitioner is facing trial in India, is an extraditable offence,
nor any request for extradition of the petitioner has been made despite knowing whereabouts of the
petitioner. It is, therefore, a humble plea of the petitioners to consider it a fit case for quashing the
RCN issued against the petitioners.

d) Section 498A IPC for protection of women:

It is submitted that the present case is a sheer misuse of the provisions mentioned under Sections
498A / 406 / 34 IPC. The said provision was meant for the protection of women and it should not be
used against the innocent persons and against a woman herself (Mother). The Father and Mother of
the petitioner had not many occasions to interact with the respondent and the allegations made in the
FIR are just to harass the petitioners.

It is submitted to the Hon’ble Court that the complaint was wholly covered under the 7th
circumstance in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors.(cited supra), which is as
under:

"7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioner and with a
view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

This can be inferred from the fact that the respondent demanded that her husband should establish her
brother in London and also take care of her parents which was a demand beyond the capacity and
resources of the petitioner.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 13

 Modern Law College
8th ShankakrraoKanitkar State Level Moot Court Competition

e) The proceedings of divorce appear to have happened in a manner which gives room for
suspicion.

This is contented on the basis of efforts taken by Mr.Falana ingh to contact Mrs.Manpreet Kaur to
come back to London. Several attempt were made by Mr.Falana Singh requesting her to come back to
London which she refused. In fact, she had left the house without informing anybody and went to
India on December 2009.

The time span between going to London i.e. 15th May 2009 and coming back to India i.e. December
2009 is only 7 months which is too short a period in marital life to know each other to have
differences of the nature of not getting resolved amicably.

This is to further submit to the Lordship that the intention of Mr.Falana Singh was never to divorce
Mrs.Manpreet Kaur but to continue a happy married life. However, Mrs.Manpreet Kaur instead of
coming back to London, filed an FIR at Amritsar Police Station. This in itself exhibits some malifide
intention on the part of Mrs.Manpreet Kaur which could be to harm the reputation and harass
Mr.Falana Singh and his family.

Further, it is not in dispute that the divorce has been granted ex-parte.

e) Inherent Powers of High Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure

The important question that falls for determination in the instant appeal is about the ambit and scope
of the inherent powers of the High Courts under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(in short “the Code”) in quashing of the criminal proceedings in non-compoundable offences relating
to matrimonial disputes.

It is not in dispute that in this case, after filing of the criminal complaint under Sections 498A, 406 &
34 of IPC, and the proceedings, the case against Mrs. Sunanda Kaur Bhatti was tried, wherein Mrs.
Manpreet Kaur deposed that she does not want to prosecute any further, hence Mrs. Sunanda Kaur
Bhatti was acquited. Mrs.Manpret Kaur had also sought divorce and the same was granted ex-parte.

We humbly submit that in the case on hand, the Honourable Court has power under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 14

 Modern Law College
8th ShankakrraoKanitkar State Level Moot Court Competition

482. Saving of inherent power 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 this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends
of justice.

Pursuant thereto, it seems that the respondant filed the said compromise before the trial Court with a
request to place the same on record and to drop the criminal proceedings against Mrs. Sunanda Kaur
Bhatti.

The counsel for the parties would like to draw the attention of Hounrable Court to the decision in B.S.
Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, where the Court held that
the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 can quash criminal proceedings
in matrimonial disputes where the dispute is entirely private and the parties are willing to settle their
disputes amicably.

We are, therefore, of the view that for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR
becomes necessary.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 15

 Modern Law College
8th ShankakrraoKanitkar State Level Moot Court Competition

PRAYER

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana that in the light of the
issues raised, arguments advanced and submissions made, this Hon’ble Court :

a) May be pleased to quash the FIR / RCN

b) May be pleased to drop the criminal proceedings pending before the on the Petitioners

And grant any other relief in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience and for this the
petitioner shall ever humbly pray.

In counsel for the petitioner

…………………………......

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 16