Memorial for Parties

District Magistrate Court of Bangalore

Bangalore.

APPEAL TO CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

…/2021
UNDER SECTION 66E OF INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY ACT

IN THE MATTER OF –
Deepti and Sher Singh PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Arun DEFENDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

DRAWN AND FILED BY COUNCIL ON

BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF.
Contents
LIST OF REFERENCES/INDEX OF AUTHORITIES: - ................................................................... 3
Cases: -.......................................................................................................................................... 3
Websites: - .................................................................................................................................... 3
STATEMENT OF FACTS: - ............................................................................................................. 3
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ............................................................................................................... 4
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ....................................................................................................... 4
ARGUMENTS IN ADVANCED ................................................................................................. 4
PRAYER:..................................................................................................................................... 5
Signature:..................................................................................................................................... 5
 LIST OF REFERENCES/INDEX OF AUTHORITIES: -

Cases: -

Websites: -

1) Indiakanoon.org

2) Manupatrafast.com

3) Lawctopus.com

4) Lexlife.in

STATEMENT OF FACTS: -
1. Arun and Deepti are classmates from Christ college who were very good friends and
during the time as students they shared personal photos and messages regularly and
continued it even after their college has ended.
2. Arun was deeply in love with Deepti and never conveyed it to her.
3. Since it was time for marriage, Deepti’s parents Mr. and Mrs. Sher Singh started
looking for a suitable boy who would match Deepti’s tastes. Deeptistarted receiving
many good proposals
4. After a few proposals Mr. Sher Singh has observed that many proposals he got were
not going ahead and came to stop at a certain point on such a suspicion
5. Mr. Sher Singh engaged with the private Agency (LynxDetective Agency Bangalore);
Mr. Singh received a report from the agency that arum was the reason behind why
Deepti’s proposals were not moving ahead
6. Arun used to send the intimate messages and photos in his possession to the people
who were trying to make a proposal for marriage with Deepti and showed that both
Deepti and arum were in an intimate relationship
7. To this behavior Mr. Singh very politely asked arun why he was doing that and Arun
has replied that “I haven’t done anything wrong, Deepti shared these to me in her sweet
will”
8. Sher Singh’s family were hurt by the statements made by Arun and his behavior
caused Mr. Sher Singh to lodge a complaint against Arun with the local police and
filed the case in court for violation of IT Act.
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1) False blaming by Mr. Sher Singh on the conviction of this act.

2) Deepti is the hidden accused by insisting Arun to share the photos.
3) Arun, is a proven innocent stuck in a game played by the actual accused, Deepti.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Deepti is a primary accused in this case. Though Arun never conveyed his love for her,
a chat between them clearly confirms as evidence that Miss Deepti conveyed her deep
love to Arun.
2. She is desperate to marry only Arun but Mr. Sher never understood her daughter’s love
life and brought various proposals for her. She was intimidated by any proposals getting
confirmed. Miss Deepti insisted Arun to share their intimate photos to cancel all the
proposals brought by her father.
3. Private investigators have no right to involve in other’s private matters without a
consent and a suspection arises on the credibility of the investigation.
4. Between both parties, mutual consent is visible in sharing intimate pictures between
them, and with this regard the Information Technology Act,2000 never stated the term
‘consent.’

ARGUMENTS IN ADVANCED

(SUHAS KATTI V. STATE OF TAMILNADU)

 The learned counsel from the respondent’s side stated that the damaging emails were
sent by the victim’s spouse or herself in order to blame the accused.
  The defense maintained that the infringing emails were sent by the complainant’s
ex-husband or the complainant herself in order to implicate the accused, who was
accused of turning down the complainant’s request to marry her.

PRAYER:

It is, therefore, prayed that your lordship may graciously be pleased in the light of
arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel on behalf of accused persons
humbly submits that the learned District Magistrate court may be pleased to adjudge
and declare that,

1. Arun is to be proved innocent and need to be removed with false accusations on

him which led to his personal defamation.
2. Deepti, must admit the conviction of these acts and demand for an apology
statement from his father for false allegations made by him.
3. the accused (Deepti) must be fined Rs. 5,00,000/- for violating the personal
boundary of a person and for self- defamation case under section 509 of IPC (Indian
Penal Code), AND section 66E, 67 of ITC (information technology act).

Signature: