ISSUE 3 - WHETHER THE FIR FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER SHOULD BE

QUASHED?

The petitioner’s book is a work of fiction based upon historical facts, which he the petitioner
wrote after rigorous research of 10 years The book in the current case has no foul language
towards any community or religion. The book praises the trues people for their valour and
sacrifices1 and creates an awareness about the pious queen and Gods. Also, the book is been
misinterpreted by mere words such as ‘enchantress’, ‘temptress’ and ‘seductress’ 2, which are
being judged out of context.

Further, it is a well-established principle that the criminal proceedings constituted based upon an
FIR, should be quashed at any stage, if the allegations made in the FIR are taken on face value
and accepted in toto, do not constitute any offence 3. The courts should apply the test to check
whether the undisputed allegations, made under FIR, prima facie, constitute an offence or not 4. If
the test concurs that the lodged FIR is bleak, the court may quash the proceedings instituted even
though it may be at the preliminary stage. 5 Even if the charge-sheet has been filed the court shall
the quash the proceedings if the offence is not likely to end up in the conviction6

Additionally, it has also been held that, where the allegations made in the complaint are patently
absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the FIR is liable to be quashed7. In
the current case both the conditions of no prima facie case and the allegations being highly
improbable and absurd, stands fulfilled.

Further, both the above-mentioned rules depend upon the facts and circumstances of each
particular case8. Hence, it is contended that the allegations made are absurd and inherently
improbable and no prima facie case is made out and the author/petitioner is not liable for (3.1)
Promoting enmity between different groups under section 153-A (3.2) making imputations and

1
Moot prop. ¶ 13.
2
Moot prop. ¶ 9, 18 & 19.
3
State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha, AIR 1982 SC 949.
4
State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604.
5
Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, AIR 1982 SC 949.
6
State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Anr., 1992 Supp (1) SCC.
7
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1966 SC 860.
8
State of UP v. VRK Srivastava, 1984 (4) SCC 59.
assertions prejudicial to national integration under section 153-B, (3.3) for obscenity under
Section 292, (3.4) for any malicious acts outraging religious feelings under section 295-A

(3.1) THE PETITIONER HAS NOT PROMOTED ENMITY BETWEEN DIFFERENT

GROUPS.

It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has been charged under section 154-A of the IPC and it
has been alleged that he has promoted enmity between different groups because of the books
written by him. It is our humble submission that prima facie no offence has been out under the
concerned section. The pre-requisites of Section 154-A are not mad out and hence the ban upon
the book is arbitrary and unreasonable. It is important to mention that a person can be charged
under this section only when in the present case is not liable for promoting enmity under S.
154A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. § 153A pre-requisites mens rea as an essential ingredient
under this section.

It is paramount to mention that a person can be charged under this section only when words
spoken or written are being intended to create disorder in the society then only the offence is
made out under this section9. However, in the present case the author has no intention to
facilitate disorder rather it is the over possessiveness of the NGO and its elite members that has
created the disorder in public tranquillity. It is imperative to mention that prima facie the
intention or mens rea has to be seen or judged primarily from the language of the book and its
whole context, how it was written and published.10

Further, in the current case, the author has no intention of promoting any enmity between any
groups or creating disorder. The alleged words such as ‘temptress’ 11 and ‘enchantress’12 used by
the author were just certain literary drivers which every author uses for making reading
interesting. The cover page of the book was also intended to show how a women, in casu, queen
Trusadi, can be both a royal queen and also a true warrior, which Queen Trusadi used to disguise
herself as Truarth when she used to go to war as Truarth with her husband. 13Also, it is very
evident from the appreciation and statements that the petitioner is receiving for his artistic work.

9
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 SCC 214.
10
Ibid.
11
Moot prop. ¶ 9.
12
Ibid.
13
Moot prop. ¶ 18.
His work is been devised as a “classic piece of modern literature” 14. This in turn confers that the
book is not intended for promoting any kind enmity.

It is to be noted, that the alleged words which have been used by the author were written by
decorating the book with the help of different kinds of figure of speech that in ordinary course of
nature every author all across the globe irrespective of different genres use for their work. In the
case of Ramesh s/o Chottelal v. Union of India 15 it was held that the offence under the concerned
section should be judged with the prudence of an ordinary man. In the present matter while
assessing the situation by applying the test of prudence the petitioner’s use of such figure of
speech and strategy is resulting in glorified representation of the queen Trusadi and picturising
Trus community as valorous warriors.
Hence, there is no doubt that the petitioner did not promote any kind whatsoever feeling of
enmity between groups rather he tried to take his own take on the Trus history by glorifying it.
Hence it can be safely concluded that the petitioner has been falsely implicated under this section
and the charges must be dropped.

4.2. THE BOOK PUBLISHED BY THE PETITIONER IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO

NATIONAL INTEGRATION AS PER SECTION 153-B

To charge anyone under section 153-B16, prima facie it must be clear that the accused had an
intention of committing and act that is potential enough to jeopardise the nation, in the present
matter, absent since the inception. Rather the work of author has beautified the Trus community
including its God’s, King and Queen. The book was based upon 10 years of dedicated and
rigorous research and the same has received the endorsement from the literary community all
across the globe.
It is to be noted that to constitute a crime under section 153-B the most important element is
intention which should be of jeopardising the national integration. 17 In the current case, the book
of the petitioner has no such elements which would create chaos. The words used by the

14
Moot prop. ¶ 20.
15
(1988) 1 SCC 668
16

17
Amish Devgan v. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1.
petitioner were merely to beautify his writing and the cover page was intended to show the
power of a women.
Further, in order to constitute a crime under § 153B, promoting enmity, ill-feeling, ill-will,
between two different communities is sine qua non18. Also, the alleged incitement of the Trus
community without any reference to another community would not attract S. 153B.19 In the
current case none of the contents of the book has caused incitement The petitioner in the current
case has not by the virtue of his book, incited such feelings. Further, the petitioner’s conduct
glorifies the past of the Trus community and has done neither of the above to constitute an
offence under the relevant sections.

(3.3) THE PETITIONER IS NOT LIABLE FOR OBSCENITY.

It is most respectfully submitted that the petitioner has not portrayed any obscene scene through
his writing in his book and prima facie no offence is been made out under Section 292 of the
Indian Penal Code, 186020. Anything considered as obscene should be arousing sexual or
prurient interest in the perverted people or it should morally corrupt the person viewing it21.

It is important to mention that in America while determining obscenity a ‘community standard

test’ was followed and it is the only valid test for determining obscenity and different countries
all across the globe has drawn inspiration from the test of community standards. 22 It is this test
only which has been considered by Supreme Court of India, 23 and the Hon’ble court has 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”,24 and it shouldn’t be seen from the view of hyper-sensitive men.25

It is to be noted in the current case that there exists nothing of the sought which might raise the
abovementioned feelings or thought of the person. There is nothing in the book that relates to a
sexually overt act or which might trigger such emotions. The book is a simple historical fictional
18
Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1.
19
Ibid.
20
Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 292, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860.
21
Maqbool fida Hussain & Ors. v. Raj Kumar Pandey, 2008 CrLJ 4167.
22
Roth v. United States, 345 U.S. 476 (1957).
23
Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, (2014) 4 SCC 257.
24
Ibid.
25
supra note 23.
write-up and consists of no colour of vulgarity but of valour 26 and respect27 towards the Trus
community.

Further, the mere word ‘sex’ cannot in itself constitute obscenity 28. This is to say that words used
as literary drives and figures of speech cannot in itself constitute obscenity or any offence
mentioned in FIR for that matter. The words ‘enchantress’ and ‘temptresses were used to glorify
the beauty of queen Trusadi. Hence, it can be said that there exists no content in the book
through which prima facie the offence of obscenity can be made out if seen from the eyes of
prudent man and not from the eyes of least capable and most depraved one29.

D.4. THE PETITIONER IS NOT LIABLE FOR MALICIOUS ACTS OUTRAGING

RELIGIOUS FEELINGS.

It is most humbly submitted that 295-A of IPC,1860, pre-requisites that there should be the
intention for such malicious acts. The intention is the most important factor for deciding cases
under § 295-A30. In the current case the petitioner had no intent of outraging religious feelings as
he has invested 10 years in that book for the purpose of glorifying the Trus history.

Section 295A only penalises those acts of insults or those varieties of attempts to insult the
religion or religious beliefs of a class of citizens which are perpetrated with the deliberate and
malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class of citizens. 31 In the current
case apart from certain isolated words and few sentences, which are being judged out of context,
there is no substantial evidence to prove the same the malicious intention of the Petitioner. The
book should be seen as a whole and not just in bits and pieces. 32 Further, the book glorifies the
Trus history and during that course, the petitioner has used certain literary tools. The petitioner
never intended to hurt the religious sentiments.

26
Moot prop. ¶ 13.
27
Moot prop. ¶ 15.
28
K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, (1970) 2 SCC 257.
29
Ibid.
30
Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 7 SCC 431.
31
Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntala Shyamsundar, (2017) 7 SCC 760; See Also Ramji Lal Modi v. State of
U.P., AIR 1957 SC 620; See Also Trustee Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust v. Government of NCT Delhi, 2001 Cr
LJ (Del).
32
Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon, (1996) 4 SCC 1.
Also, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner has glorified the valorous Trus people, 33and the act
self-immolation act of the Queen which she did as because she could fore see that after being
caught by the invaders their prestige will be crucified. His many sentences have described the
valour of queen Trusadi and how she accepted death than the Raks.34 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. Also, the findings of the charge sheet are the same as when
the FIR was filed. Also, there is no other specific fact other than mentioned, to prove the guilt of
the petitioner. Hence, the FIR filed in the current case proceedings against the petitioner should
be quashed and all the charges against him should be dropped.

ISSUE C - WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT VIOLATE THE

RIGHT TO REPUTATION OF THE PETITIONER?

It is most respectfully submitted before the High Court of Tapovast that the states actions against
the petitioner, Slovas Mishi are violative of the fundamental right, i.e., the right to dignity. The
right to dignity is a right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Life and personnel
liberty under Article 21 mean something more than mere animal existence 35. It includes the right
to enjoy the good opinion of others well 36. Hence, an injury to the reputation is a personnel
injury.

The government’s action has resulted in hatred and an ill opinion towards the petitioner & that is
evident from the violent clashes taking inside the state. 37 The right to dignity of the petitioner is
been violated by the, (C.1) official statement of the Chief Minister.

C.1. OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF MINISTER VIOLATES ARTICLE 21

It is submitted that the statements of the Chief Minister through which he urges to ban the book,
have questioned, the research, skills and importantly the reputation of the petitioner as a writer.
Reputation is of paramount importance. The citizens at large have the right to life i.e., to live

33
Moot prop. ¶13.
34
Moot prop. ¶13.
35
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295.
36
Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 2014 SC 1106.
37
Moot prop. ¶ 20.
with dignity, freedom, and safety38. This right emerged from Article 21 of the constitution.
Reputation is also an important facet of Article 2139, and is integral part of personal liberty 40. A
good reputation is an element of personnel security and is protected by the constitution41.

In case of Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik42, it has been held that, a good name is better than
good riches. It means that the reputation of a man is of primary value 43. The government by its
actions has violated the right to dignity of the petitioners which includes the right to a good
reputation. In casu, The Chief Minister urged other states as well to ban the book of Slovas
Mishi44. 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. Reputation is a necessary element under Article 2145. Hence, the aforementioned
actions of the government and of Mr. Yoda Trudis have disrespected the petitioner and has
violated his right to reputation.

Further, in the case of Charu Khurana v. Union of India46, it has been ruled that dignity is the
quintessential quality of a personality, for it is a highly cherished value. The arbitrary ban upon
the book47 creates a negative image of the petitioner. 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.

38
Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, AIR 1981 SC 746.
39
Bord of trustees of the Port Bombay v. Dilip Kumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni, (1985) 7 SCC 641.
40
D.F. Marion v. Minnie Davis, 55 American LR 171.
41
State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern of Governance Trust, AIR 1989 SC 714.
42
(2007) 14 SCC 1.
43
Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry (1989) 1 SCC 494.
44
Moot Proposition, ¶. 21.
45
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221.
46
(2015) 1 SCC 192.
47
Moot Proposition, ¶. 21.