The counsel would like to approach the bench with respect to submissions Your

lordship this counsel 2 from the side of petitioners and will be dealing with
Issues 3-4 If it may please your lordship the counsel would like to begin the
submissions regarding issue 3.

Your lordship the 3rd issue concerns the quashing of the FIRs filed by the Trus
Swabhiman Sanghatan in current case alleging that the petitioner’s book is
violative of section 153A, 153B 292 and 295A of the Indian Penal Code and the
allegation in casu are based upon isolated words and sentences which are being
judges out of context disregarding the beauty of the book.

Your lordship the matter of quashing of FIR has been dealt by the courts for
Securing ends of Justice and so that there is no abuse of process of law and so
that person has to go through the

The test for quashing of FIR was propounded in the benchmark judgment of
state of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal. It is in this very case it was held that to
quash the FIR it is to be seen that whether the allegations made in the FIR prima
facie constitute an offence or not and if the test concurs that the FIR is bleak
then the court may quash the proceedings, irrespective of the stage where the
proceedings are. And the council will be proving that prima facie the offence is
not made out.

Your lordship for Section 153A and for section 295-A mens rea is an essential
ingredient under both these section.
Your lordship for Section 153-A, in the case of Balwant Singh v. State of
Punjab and for Section 295-A in the case of Mahendra Singh Dhoni v.
Yerratungala Shyamsundar, it has been held that, intention forms the most
important ingredient under the respective Sections. In case of Markandey Katiu
v. Lok Sabha it was held that the author's view is to be gathered from a broader
perspective and also the context of its language and central theme for finding
his alleged deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings. One
cannot rely on strongly-worded isolated passages nor can one take a sentence
here and a sentence there and connect them by a meticulous process of
inferential reasoning. On similar lines, the counsel submits that the lines used
for the gods Ru and Tu is depiction of an artistic amplification using hyperbole
mechanism of stating things and has no relation whatsoever with respect to
malicious intent to demean the Trus Gods but has only been used as a literary
devise to make the readers imagine the picture of ferocious and unprincipled
King Draks. Also, the words such as enchantress temptress were used to tell
how the Draks used to perceive Queen Trusadi not as a remark upon her
chastity. Furthermore, the author has described her as a women of legendry
beauty and sheer valour under paragraph 7. And for the same reason the in
cover page also she was unveiled depicting her sides both as her disguise of
valorous Truarth and of a royal queen or as a goddess.

Your lordship For Section 153-B as well the act should be such that it
prejudices the national integration and it should be prima facie it must be clear
that the act of the accused is potential enough to jeopardise the nation which in
current case is absent since the inception.
Also, your lordship it has been held in the case gopal Vinayak dose v. state of
Maharashtra that the alleged incitement of the Trus community without any
reference to another community would not attract S. 153B. it is pertinent to note
that the Petitioner under Para 13 gives us an brief excerpt of how valorious
queen Trusadi was, how bravely she choose death over King draks glorifying
both her chastity and her valour. Furthermore, paragraph 7 shows us that how
valorous Trus warriors accepted death in the battlefield and how unprincipled
Raks and the invader Draks was who did bloodshed only for their lust and
greed. There have been no words which would could be said to incite any
community against other community
Further, Your Lordship the Petitioner is also charged under Section 292 for
obscenity.

In lordship in the case Aveek Sarkar v. state of west Bengal held that “only such
sexual materials will be held to be obscene if they have the capacity to of
producing lascivious thoughts, however, the obscenity is to be judged from the
point of view of an ordinary man of prudence” and it shouldn’t be seen from the
view of hyper-sensitive men, by application of the community standard test.
There exists nothing which might raise the perverted feelings or thought of the
person and there no relation any to sexually overt act or which may trigger such
emotions because book is a historical fictional write-up and consists of no
colour of vulgarity but of valour and respect towards the Trus community.

Also, your lordship if certain words like enchantress temptress and seeing
women unveiled in the cover pages incites the overtly sexual feeling and such
items are deemed as obscene then your lordship it wouldn’t be wrong to say that
the society is heading towards a downfall and hence it is the duty of this
Hon’ble court to save declare and distinguish between over sensitiveness and
the crime of obscenity so that there is still consciousness among people. Further
in the Aveek Sarkar case it was also held that a book cannot be classified
obscene merely because it contains unconventional words or describes female
body as a feeling of narration or thought.
Further, Your Lordship A book should be seen as whole for determining its
content and as as my co-counsel stated that there should be intellectual tolerance
among people or else only religious books will be sold in the market and there
will no space artistic and modern literary work. Hence, the petitioner, prima
facie has committed no act for which he is to be prosecuted. Further,
considering the above factors and evidences, it is crystal clear that the petitioner
has committed no prima facie offence. Hence, the FIR filed in the current case
proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed and all the charges against
him should be dropped.

If your lordships have no further questions then the counsel would like to
move to further issues.
Your Lordship the 4th issue concerns the violation of the Right to
reputation of the Petitioner which is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution which is been violated by the action of the government and chief
minister by showing over possessiveness towards a community and degrading
the reputation of the petitioner as a writer by the statements issued in public.
The counsel seeks permission to quote Justice Ojha what he quoted in
case of Kiran Bedi v. committee of inquiry “Akirtinchapi Bhutani Kathaishyanti
te-a-vyayam, Sambhavitasya Chakirtir mara- nadatirichyate." (234) (Men will
recount thy perpetual dishonour, and to one highly esteemed, dishonour exceeds
death.
This truly implies the importance of reputation of a person. A good
reputation is an element of personnel security and is protected by the
constitution and a good name is better than good riches. It means that the
reputation of a man is of primary value. The arbitrary ban upon the book creates
a negative image of the petitioner among the people as petitioner is a well
known literary figure.

It is evident that the Chief Minister holds that the book of the petitioner is
of no literary value. The petitioner in the current case has been disrepute due to
sensitiveness of the authorities towards a community without considering the
status quo and without assessing the nature of the book published. Such ban
causes negativity in the mind of the reader of the books regarding the petitioner.
This not only puts up a question upon the petitioner’s skills but also upon his
carrier. The Petitioner's reputation was sullied amongst his colleagues, his
superiors and the society at large, and such harm cannot be ever rescinded.

If your lordships have no further question then the counsel would like to move
to the prayer.

Wherefore it is prayed, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced,

and authorities cited, that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
1. Declare that the impugned notification under Section 95 Cr.P.C,
1973 passed by the Government of Tapovast violates petitioner’s
freedom of speech and expression, freedom to practice any
profession, right to reputation, and pass an order to lift the ban
imposed by the government.
2. Quash the arbitrary FIR filed against the petitioner.

And/or Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the
best interests of Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience.