NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

Criminal Law - 2
PROJECT ON:
Memorial on behalf of Respondent

SUBMITTED BY:

Anshuman Jamkiar (19BA027)

Harshwardhan Meena (19BA051)

5TH SEMESTER

B.A. LL.B.
of

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, ODISHA

Submitted To

Dr. Anup Kumar Pattnaik

 Anshuman Jamkiar – 19 BA 027
Harshwardhan Meena – 19 BA
051
PROJECT OF CRIMINAL LAW – II

Before

HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF WAKANDA

FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

RAJU SINGH PETITIONER – I

SHYAM PRASAD PETITIONER – II

versus

STATE OF WAKANDA RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

PAGE | 2
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT] TABLE OF CONTENTS
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... I

Index of Authorities ................................................................................................................. III

Index of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. V

Statement of Jurisdiction......................................................................................................... VI

Statement of Facts .................................................................................................................. VII

Background ............................................................................................................................ VII

The buisness collapses ........................................................................................................... VII

Threats & Suicide ................................................................................................................. VIII

Investigation & Proceedings ................................................................................................. VIII

Issues Raised ........................................................................................................................... IX

Issue - I.................................................................................................................................... IX

Issue - II .................................................................................................................................. IX

Summary of Arguments ............................................................................................................ X

Raju Singh And Shyam Prasad are Liable Under Section 306 Of The Wakanda Penal Code . X

The FIR Cannot be Quashed ..................................................................................................... X

Arguments Advanced............................................................................................................... 11

Raju Singh and Shyam Prasad are liable under Section 306 of the Wakanda Penal Code...... 11

The FIR Cannot Be Quashed ................................................................................................... 14

PAGE | I
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT] TABLE OF CONTENTS
 A. The present case does not warrant invoking of such power by High Court. ......... 14

B. The matter was still undergoing investigation ....................................................... 17

Prayer for Relief ....................................................................................................................... 18

PAGE | II
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT] TABLE OF CONTENTS
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Abir Saha v The State of West Bengal [2019] MANU/WB/1768/2019 ................................... 13

AR Madhav Rao v State of Haryana (2012) CRM M-2068 of 2012 ....................................... 13

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v State of Maharashtra [2021] AIR SC 1. ............................... 17

Chitresh Kumar Chopra v State [2009] 16 SCC 605. ............................................................. 13

In State of West Bengal v Sujit Kumar Rana [2004] AIR SC 1851 ......................................... 16

Kurukshetra University v State of Haryana [1977] 4 SCC 451............................................... 20

M Mohan v State [2011] SC 1238............................................................................................ 13

M Mohan v The State [2011] MANU/SC/0161/2011 .............................................................. 12

Munshiram v State of Rajasthan [2018] 5 SCC 678. ............................................................... 19

Narayan Malhari Thorat v Vinayak Deorao Bhagat [2019] 13 SCC 598. .............................. 20

Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v State of Maharashtra [2021] MANU/SC/0272/2021...... 18

Praveen Pradhan v State of Uttaranchal [2012] 9 SCC 743................................................... 18

Praveen Pradhan v State of Uttaranchal [2012] 9 SCC 743................................................... 14

Ramesh Kumar v State of Chhattisgarh [2001] 9 SCC 618..................................................... 13

Ramesh Kumar v State of Chhattisgarh [2001] 9 SCC 618..................................................... 18

Rashika v State of Goa [2014] MANU/MH/0560/2014. ................................................... 13, 18

Ravula Hariprasada Rao v State [1951] SCR 322. ................................................................. 14

Reena vs State Of U.P [2021] MANU/UP/0126/2021............................................................. 17

RP Kapur v State of Punjab [1960] AIR SC 866..................................................................... 16

PAGE | III
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS
Saranya v Bharathi [2021] MANU/SC/0547/2021; State of Bihar v Rajendra Agrawalla
[1996] 8 SCC 164. ............................................................................................................... 17

SS Chheena v Vijay Kumar Mahajan [2010] MANU/SC/0585/2010 ..................................... 14

State of Gujarat v Acharya D Pandey [1973] 3 SCC 183. ...................................................... 14

State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal [1992] SCC (Cri) 426............................................................. 16

State of MP v Pradeep Sharma [2014] AIR C 626. ................................................................. 16

Statutes

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, ch16.................................................................................. 18

The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, s482.......................................................................... 16

Wakanda Penal Code 1860, s306............................................................................................. 17

Wakanda Penal Code 1860, s360............................................................................................. 12

Wakanda Penal Code, 1860, s107............................................................................................ 13

Wakanda Penal Code, 1860, s107............................................................................................ 17

Books

Bryan A Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary (8th edn, Thomson Reuters 2004) 2547. .............. 15

K. K. Iyengar, Commentary On The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2nd ed, 2011) ..... 16

KI Vibhute, PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law (14th edn, LexisNexis 2021) 710. ............................. 13

Articles

Editor, ‘Exercising power under S. 482 CrPC, Court quashes chargesheet against arrayed
accused in absence of any prima facie case’ (SCC Online Blog, 1 October 2020) ............. 17

PAGE | IV
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS
 INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

A.I.R ALL INDIA REPORTER

CRM-M CRIMINAL-MAIN

CR.P.C. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

ORS. OTHERS

S.C.C SUPREME COURT CASES

SCR SUPREME COURT RECORD

UOI UNION OF INDIA

V. VERSUS

WPC WAKANDA PENAL CODE

& AND

PAGE | V
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsel for the Petitioner humbly submits before the Hon’ble Commercial Court of
Wakanda, the Memorandum on behalf of the Petitioner who has filed the civil suit under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

This memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments for the petitioner in the
given case.

PAGE | VI
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

Baburao was a Wakandian cryptocurrency dealer who worked for a minor cryptocurrency
business. He then set up a number of phoney companies, got them to participate in the
development of a crypto exchange platform, received capital from the market, and then shut
down the business. However, several of his employees, such as Raju Singh and Shyam
Prasad, were aware of Baburao's unlawful actions but kept quiet about it.

With the passage of time, the three began to operate independently. Although Baburao
originally experienced some huge ups and downs in the industry, he has always rebounded
and risen to the top of the crypto market owing to his intellect, ill-gotten money, and
excellent knowledge of the crypto market. Baburao has been dubbed the "Big Bull" of the
Crypto market as a result of his enormous success. Baburao had become a successful
businessman who was also interested in humanitarian work. After gaining success, he
married Anuradha.

The other two buddies, Raju Singh and Shyam Prasad, had recently gone bankrupt in their
separate businesses and were deeply in debt. Baburao ultimately helped them financially and
placed them in jobs in his subsidiary companies. After knowing about Baburao's turnovers
and profits, Raju Singh and Shyam Prasad envy his rise and prosperity.

To extort money from Baburao, Raju Singh and Shyam Prasad began threatening him with
revealing the forgeries he committed to the Cryptocurrencies and Exchange Board of
Wakanda ("CEBK") and the police. Initially, Baburao complied with their illegal demands
and paid them money. However, Raju Singh and Shyam Prasad's greed intensified with time,
and Baburao made it clear that he would not be able to satisfy their outrageous demands.

THE BUISNESS COLLAPSES

Musk Melon, a well-known entrepreneur and environmentalist, voiced major concerns about
energy usage in cryptocurrency mining in a tweet on May 14th, 2021. The crypto market was
flipped upside down as a result of this tweet, with cryptocurrency prices plummeting to new
lows. Bears seized over the whole crypto market when the right time arose, and prices began
PAGE | VII
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT STATEMENT OF FACTS
to fall. Baburao has suffered significant losses as a result of this, as he had previously
amassed a large number of cryptocurrencies and was intending to enter the market on a
bullish trend. With such a strong negative tendency, however, Baburao had little prospect of
regaining his losses and was frightened of becoming bankrupt.

THREATS & SUICIDE

On May 15th, 2021, Raju Singh and Shyam Prasad warned Baburao that if his demands were
not satisfied by May 20th, 2021, they will report the occurrences to CEBK and the police.
After getting such a deadline and anticipating being exposed in front of the responsible
authorities, Baburao felt sad.

On May 18, 2021, Baburao was discovered dead in his Wakanda home. He left a suicide note
and committed suicide by hanging himself. He acknowledged to his prior acts of creating
bogus organisations to gain money, as well as how he lost his money, in the aforementioned
note. It also showed his friendship with Raju Singh and Shyam Prasad, as well as how they
used blackmail to obtain money from him. Last but not least, the memo detailed Raju Singh
and Shyam Prasad's requests.

INVESTIGATION & PROCEEDINGS

Based on the suicide letter, the Wakanda Police filed a FIR under section 306 of the Wakanda
Penal Code, 1860, against Raju Singh and Shyam Prasad. After the FIR was lodged, Raju
Singh and Shyam Prasad were arrested and eventually freed on bail by the Hon'ble High
Court of Wakanda.

Raju Singh and Shyam Prasad decided to submit a plea before the Hon'ble High Court of
Wakanda under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the
FIR at the preliminary stage before the investigation was concluded, after they were freed on
bail.

PAGE | VIII
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT STATEMENT OF FACTS
 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE - I

Whether Raju Singh and Shyam Prasad can be held liable under Section 306 of the
Wakanda Penal Code?

ISSUE - II

Whether the FIR can be quashed in the present case?

PAGE | IX
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT ISSUES RAISED
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

RAJU SINGH AND SHYAM PRASAD ARE LIABLE UNDER SECTION 306 OF THE
WAKANDA PENAL CODE

It is respectfully urged before the Honourable High Court of Wakanda that the plaintiff can
be held guilty under section 306 of the Wakanda Penal Code 1860 in the said issue because it
fulfils the elements of Abetment to Suicide since there was an instigation and a mental
element. Because of the petitioners' conduct, the dead had no choice but to commit suicide.

THE FIR CANNOT BE QUASHED

It is respectfully submitted to the Hon'ble High Court of Wakanda that the plea to quash the
FIR should not be accepted in this case. The following lines of argument present the
arguments in support of the same. To begin with, the current case does not justify the High
Court invoking inherent powers since it does not meet any of the standards that must be
followed when a FIR is dismissed. Second, the case was still in the early stages of inquiry.

PAGE | X
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

RAJU SINGH AND SHYAM PRASAD ARE LIABLE UNDER SECTION 306 OF
THE WAKANDA PENAL CODE

(¶1.) It is respectfully submitted to the Hon'ble High Court of Wakanda that the plaintiff can
be held guilty under section 306 of the Wakanda Penal Code 1860 in the current issue since it
fulfils the elements.

(¶2.) Mr. Baburao, the deceased in this case, commits suicide on May 18, 2021. The suicide
letter he leaves behind details how he was extorted by the petitioners and how he was
blackmailed by them1.

(¶3.) Although the term "suicide" is not defined in the Code, its meaning and significance are
generally understood and require no explanation. " Sui" means "self," and "cide" means
"killing," indicating a suicide attempt. In other words, a suicidal person must commit suicide
himself, regardless of the means he employs to accomplish his goal of suicide2.

(¶4.) Section 306 of the Criminal Code defines abetment to suicide, which is satisfied in this
case. According to the code:

“If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such
suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”3

(¶5.) The fundamental elements for an act to be considered an abetment of suicide are that a
suicide has taken place and that someone has abetted the suicide. Section 107 of the Wakanda
Penal Code defines abetment as:

“A person abets the doing of a thing, who:

1. Instigates any person to do that thing; OR
2. Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for
the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in

1
Moot Proposition, para 9.
2
M Mohan v The State [2011] MANU/SC/0161/2011.
3
Wakanda Penal Code 1860, s360.
PAGE | 11
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT PRAYER FOR RELIEF
 pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; OR
3. Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”4

(¶6.) A person who abets is someone who instigates another person, according to this
definition. While the term 'instigate' is not defined in the legislation, it was in the case of
Ramesh Kumar v State of Chhattisgarh that it was defined.5 To goad, press forward, provoke,
incite, or encourage someone to undertake "an act" is to instigate. This does not include a
casual reference to suicide.6

(¶7.) The meanings of 'goad' and 'urge' under instigation were brought to light in the case of
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v State7. "A item that pushes someone into action: incite to action or
response," according to the definition of the term "goad." "To try hard to convince another to
do something or to make a person go more rapidly and or in a specific way, especially by
pushing or pressuring such person," says the definition of the term "urge." the definitions of
‘goad’ and ‘urge’ under instigation were brought to notice.

(¶8.) 'Mens rea is an essential concomitant of incitement,' it was found in the case of Abir
Saha v State of West Bengal8. In the case of AR Madhav Rao v State of Haryana9, the
contents of the suicide note must be examined to see whether there is any damning evidence
that led to the deceased's suicide., it was held that, ‘mens rea is a necessary concomitant of
instigation’.

(¶9.) As observed in the case of M Mohan v State10, “Section 306 requires an active act or
direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have
been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.”

(¶10.) Rashika v State of Goa11 included an unlawful relationship between the dead and the
accused. The accused extorted money from the dead by taking nude images of him. On other
instances, the accused continued to threaten to extort money. As a consequence of the

4
Wakanda Penal Code, 1860, s107.
5
Ramesh Kumar v State of Chhattisgarh [2001] 9 SCC 618.
6
KI Vibhute, PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law (14th edn, LexisNexis 2021) 710.
7
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v State [2009] 16 SCC 605.
8
Abir Saha v The State of West Bengal [2019] MANU/WB/1768/2019
9
AR Madhav Rao v State of Haryana (2012) CRM M-2068 of 2012
<https://phhc.gov.in/download_file.php?auth=L2RhdGEwMS9hcHAvb3JhY2xlL3Byb2R1Y3QvMTFnL2FwY
WNoZS9wZGYvZm8vQ1JNLU1fMjA2OF8yMDEyXzIyXzA1XzIwMThfRklOQUxfT1JERVIucGRm>.
10
M Mohan v State [2011] SC 1238.
11
Rashika v State of Goa [2014] MANU/MH/0560/2014.
PAGE | 12
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT PRAYER FOR RELIEF
harassment, and since the deceased was unable to satisfy the demands, he committed himself.
The dead wrote a suicide note to the police in which he explained his relationship with the
accused and blamed her for his death. The court noted that in this case, a "instigation" may
have to be inferred if the accused had, by his acts or omissions or by a prolonged course of
behaviour, established such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other alternative
than to commit suicide.12

(¶11.) In the case of Praveen Pradhan v State of Uttaranchal13, the dead blamed the accused in
his suicide note owing to the accused's constant harassment and belittling of him at work. He
also described the abuse and then killed himself. The FIR was not quashed by the court.

(¶12.) These examples have facts that are comparable to the current scenario. There has been
a suicide, and the petitioners have been charged with aiding and abetting suicide. The
petitioners had been blackmailing and tormenting Mr. Baburao to the point that he had no
choice but to sue. The petitioners have been attempting to extract money from the dead in this
case. Even before the bitcoin market crashed, Baburao made it plain that their excessive
expectations would not be satisfied. Extortion is also a crime under Wakanda Penal Code
Section 383, which the petitioners have committed.

(¶13.) This is comparable to the statement made by the dead in Rashika v State of Goa, in
which he stated that he was unable to satisfy the requests. When the petitioners threatened to
report it on the 20th of May, he had no choice but to comply with their outrageous demand
because he was on the edge of bankruptcy and had little possibility of recovering. As a result,
the only choice he had was to take the final step.

(¶14.) Mens rea is essential to convict a person under section 306.14 In the case of State of
Gujarat v Acharya D Pandey,15 it was stated mens rea refers to a mental condition, which can
be constituted by intention or knowledge.16 Knowledge is defined as the awareness or
understanding of a circumstance17.

(¶15.) The petitioners were aware of his financial situation and knew he was unable to pay, so

12
ibid.
13
Praveen Pradhan v State of Uttaranchal [2012] 9 SCC 743.
14
SS Chheena v Vijay Kumar Mahajan [2010] MANU/SC/0585/2010.
15
State of Gujarat v Acharya D Pandey [1973] 3 SCC 183.
16
Ravula Hariprasada Rao v State [1951] SCR 322.
17
Bryan A Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary (8th edn, Thomson Reuters 2004) 2547.
PAGE | 13
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT PRAYER FOR RELIEF
there was no way for him to dodge the threat. Despite knowing that the deceased would be
unable to satisfy the 'unreasonable demands,'18 the accused proceeded to threaten him.
Furthermore, the petitioners are bitcoin specialists, and the cryptocurrency market crashed on
May 14, 2021, never to be recovered. The petitioners threatened the dead with excessive
demands the next day and gave him until May 20, 2021. For which the dead had no other
option than to commit suicide. The petitioners were aware of the situation, and it was clear
that the deceased had no other choice but to commit suicide.

(¶16.) It is humbly submitted that the threats in this instance persisted for a long time,
gradually raising the demand despite the fact that they were aware of the deceased's
condition. The petitioners' threats can be considered an act of incitement. The consequences
of such incitement are outlined in Section 306 of the Wakanda Penal Code, which includes a
penalty of up to 10 years in prison as well as a fine. It is most humbly suggested that Raju
Singh and Shyam Prasad can be found accountable under Section 306 of the Wakanda Penal
Code, 1860, based on the aforesaid considerations.

THE FIR CANNOT BE QUASHED

(¶17.) It is humbly submitted before the Hon‘ble High Court of Wakanda that in the instant
matter that the petition to quash the FIR should not be allowed. The contentions for the same
have been submitted in the following lines of argument. Firstly, the present case does not
warrant invoking of inherent powers by High Court. [A] Secondly, the matter was still
undergoing investigation. [B]

A. The present case does not warrant invoking of such power by High Court.

(¶18.) Petitioners have filed a motion to quash the FIR against them under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petition does not have to be accepted by the court.
The use of inherent authority under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the
exception rather than the rule. The current case does not merit the use of such power by the
High Court since it is not a unique situation that requires the intervention of the High Court.

(¶19.) The scope of section 482 of the CrPC, 1973 is extraordinarily broad, and the High

18
Moot Propostion, para 9.
PAGE | 14
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Court should only apply it in the most exceptional of circumstances19. The clause can only be
utilised in extreme circumstances, such as when it appears that a person has been wrongfully
accused of a crime or where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person accused of
a crime will not otherwise abuse his liberty.20
There are three situations when this power can be used21;
i) to give to affect an order under the code,
ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and
iii) to secure the ends of justice.22

(¶20.) The petition in this matter has nothing to do with carrying out an order. There has
been no violation of the court's process. Regarding the third prerequisite in this case, it should
be remembered that Indian courts have established a number of criteria under which
proceedings might be cancelled in the interest of justice.

(¶21.) In the landmark cases of R.P Kapur v State of Punjab23 and State of Haryana v Bhajan
Lal24, well-established parameters were framed which can help the court to quash an FIR.
Parameters are as follows;
(i) Does not constitute a prima facie case, (ii) No disclosure of any cognizable offence, (iii)
allegations present in FIR and evidence do not disclose any commission of offence, (iv) if it’s
not a cognizable offence that can be investigated only by Magistrate’s order, (v) allegations
made are absurd and inherently not probable, (vi) express legal bar to the institution and the
continuance of proceedings, (vi) proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or
instituted maliciously with an ulterior motive.25

(¶22.) None of the parameters are being followed in this scenario. There is an alleged offence
under section 306 of the Wakanda Penal Code in our case. It is well knowledge that if the
claims in the FIR are taken at face value and accepted, yet do not constitute an offence prima
facie, the FIR might be invalidated. In addition, in a case under section 482, just a prima facie

19
K. K. Iyengar, Commentary On The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2nd ed, 2011)
20
State of MP v Pradeep Sharma [2014] AIR C 626.
21
The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, s482.
22
ibid.
23
RP Kapur v State of Punjab [1960] AIR SC 866.
24
State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal [1992] SCC (Cri) 426.
25
Editor, ‘Exercising power under S. 482 CrPC, Court quashes chargesheet against arrayed accused in absence
of any prima facie case’ (SCC Online Blog, 1 October 2020)
<https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/10/01/kar-hc-exercising-power-under-s-482-crpc-court-quashes-
chargesheet-against-arrayed-accused-in-absence-of-any-prima-facie-case/> accessed 16 October 2021.
PAGE | 15
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT PRAYER FOR RELIEF
examination of the case is required, and the court should not dive into the case's evidence
appraisal, but rather assess the claims on their merits and determine if they are true.26

(¶23.) While it is mandatory that the High Court while dealing with section 482, must
conduct a prima facie examination of whether the ingredients of the alleged offence have
been established in the FIR.27 In the case of Reena v State of UP, it was held that if the
ingredients of the alleged offence are met prima facie, then the court cannot quash the FIR.28

29
(¶24.) The essential ingredients of section 306, are; a) suicidal death & b) abetment.
Abetment is defined by section 107 of Wakanda Penal Code, 1860 as follows;
“A person abets the doing of a thing, who:
4. Instigates any person to do that thing; or
5. Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for
the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
6. Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that
thing.”30

(¶25.) A person who abets is someone who instigates another person, according to this
definition. While the term 'instigate' is not defined in the legislation, it was in the case of
Ramesh Kumar v State of Chhattisgarh that it was defined. To goad, press forward, prod,
incite, or encourage someone to undertake "an act" is to instigate.31 When the accused has
created such circumstances that the dead has no other alternative than to commit suicide as a
result of his or her actions or omissions, a "instigation" may have to be inferred.32

(¶26.) In the case of Praveen Pradhan v State of Uttaranchal,33 similarly due to persistent
harassment and insulting of deceased at the workplace by the accused, the deceased blamed
the accused in the suicide note. explained about the harassment and committed suicide. The
court dismissed the petition which was an appeal against not quashing an FIR.

26
Saranya v Bharathi [2021] MANU/SC/0547/2021; State of Bihar v Rajendra Agrawalla [1996] 8 SCC 164.
27
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v State of Maharashtra [2021] AIR SC 1.
28
Reena vs State Of U.P [2021] MANU/UP/0126/2021
29
Wakanda Penal Code 1860, s306.
30
Wakanda Penal Code, 1860, s107.
31
Ramesh Kumar v State of Chhattisgarh [2001] 9 SCC 618.
32
Rashika v State of Goa [2014] MANU/MH/0560/2014.
33
Praveen Pradhan v State of Uttaranchal [2012] 9 SCC 743.
PAGE | 16
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT PRAYER FOR RELIEF
(¶27.) The FIR in our case included an accusation of abetment of suicide based on the suicide
note. The past affiliation is also mentioned in the suicide note, as well as how the petitioners
were 'instigating' Mr. Baburao. As a result, there is a prima facie case against the accused that
is neither false nor ludicrous.

(¶28.) Abetment of suicide is a serious offence and is clearly a cognizable offence as per the
laws.34 Furthermore, there has been no legal bar to the proceedings, therefore the entire set of
criteria is invalid in this case, and there is no unfairness in this case to achieve the purposes of
injustice. As a result, it is argued that the FIR cannot be quashed.

B. The matter was still undergoing investigation

(¶29.) The FIR should not be quashed at this early stage of the inquiry, it is respectfully
argued. There is a prima facie case against the accused, as mentioned previously.

(¶30.) It is submitted that in the case of Neeharika, Infrastructure v The State of

Maharashtra, the Supreme dealt in detail about the investigation by police.35 The court
observed that High Courts must be more cautious in their approach to section 482 of the
CrPC because its powers are broad, and therefore the court must be more vigilant in its duties
without interfering with the investigative officers' rights. In the uncommon cases where the
quashing is granted, the court must explain concise reasons, according to the case.

(¶31.) The Supreme Court provided a new set of guidelines while dealing with cases of
section 482 of CrPC. Few of those relevant principles laid are provided below:

“I - Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of
the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to
investigate into cognizable offences;
II - Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offence
X -Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in
miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere
at the stage of investigation of offences;

XII -Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be

34
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, ch16.
35
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v State of Maharashtra [2021] MANU/SC/0272/2021.
PAGE | 17
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT PRAYER FOR RELIEF
 premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the
complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse
of process of law.”36

(¶32.) The statutory rights of investigative agencies or police are reaffirmed in these
recommendations. The ruling emphasises that courts should not obstruct any inquiry into a
criminal offence unless it is a clear case of miscarriage of justice. The petition to quash the
FIR was submitted at the preliminary stage of the inquiry in this instance, and there has been
no miscarriage of justice because the petitioners have a prima facie case against them.

(¶33.) In the case of Munshiram v State of Rajasthan37, the deceased wrote suicide notes
blaming his wife and in-laws. FIR was launched against the respondent under section 306 of
WPC, 1860. The FIR was overturned by the Rajasthan High Court. However, on appeal to
the Supreme Court, the ruling was reversed, with the Supreme Court stating that High Courts
must exercise caution while using Section 482 CrPC. They also overturned the ruling,
claiming that the FIR was dismissed before police could undertake a full investigation, and
ordered the inquiry to be completed.

(¶34.) In the case of Narayan Malhari Thorat v Vinayak Deorao Bhagat,38 similarly, the
Supreme Court reversed the decision of the High Court which quashed the F.I.R. It was a
case about harassment of the wife of the victim by the accused. The Supreme Court held that
investigation was yet to be complete and the charge sheet was yet to be filed, hence at this
stage, the high court erred into going to the aspects of the mental element. So, the judgement
was reversed. Similarly,, in the case of Kurukshetra University, Supreme Court reversed the
judgement of the high court quashing an FIR as the investigation procedure was not
complete.39

(¶35.) In the present case, the investigation is only in the preliminary stage.40 It is requested
that the Hon'ble review it and provide the investigating authorities the statutory authority to
continue the inquiry because there has been no miscarriage of justice in this matter. As a
result, it is respectfully requested that the plea to quash the FIR be rejected.

36
ibid.
37
Munshiram v State of Rajasthan [2018] 5 SCC 678.
38
Narayan Malhari Thorat v Vinayak Deorao Bhagat [2019] 13 SCC 598.
39
Kurukshetra University v State of Haryana [1977] 4 SCC 451.
40
Moot Problem, para 11.
PAGE | 18
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT PRAYER FOR RELIEF
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, may this Hon'ble court be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. The petitioners Raju Singh and Shyam Prasad be held liable under Section 306 of the
Wakanda Penal Code.

2. The petition for quashing the FIR be dismissed.

And pass any other order in favour of respondent that the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the
interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

Date: 21. 10.2021 S/d-

Place: Wakanda (Counsel appearing for petition

PAGE | 19
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT PRAYER FOR RELIEF