If it may please the court The counsel would like to begin with the submissions

regarding issue 3 and 4

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 are based upon isolated words and sentences which are being judges
out of context, degrading the beauty of the book.

Your lordship to secure the ends of justice and to avoid abuse of process of law
the cases have to go through test propounded in the landmark judgment of state
of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal. Mentioned under footnote 97 and Page 32 of the
memorial ,Where it was held that to quash the FIR it is to be adjudged that
whether the allegations made in the FIR prima facie constitute an offence or not,
and if FIR fails the test court may quash the proceedings, irrespective of the
stage. Your lordship the council will be proving that prima facie the offences
are not made out in the instant case.

Your lordship for Section 153A and for section 295-A of the IPC, mens rea is
an essential ingredient.
Your lordship, in the case of Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab for Section
153-A in the case of Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerratungala Shyamsundar for
Section 295-A, it has been held that, intention forms the most important
ingredient under the respective Sections. Your lordship may refer to paragraph 7
and 13. the true intention of the book to glorify the trus community has been
highlighted and further it is laid down principle that the authors view is to be
gathered from a broader perspective and not stand alone instances. 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
13 and has praised trus women for their valour under para 7.

Your lordship For Section 153-B as well the act should be such that it
prejudices the national integration and 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, YL it has been held in case of Joseph Bain D'Souza and another v. State of

Maharashtra and others that for Section 153B the book should be read as whole
and not in isolation and when the in the cited case the writer wrote objectionable
article about the extremist section of the community, then the court looked upon
the article as whole for the section to be made out and similarly your lordship
when read as whole the book is not derogatory. It is pertinent to note YL that
Para 13 gives us an brief excerpt, when petitioner writes about 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
valorously Trus warriors accepted death in the battlefield and how unprincipled
Raks and their kings Draks were 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 or keep the nation integration under threat.

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. The case is mentioned at foot note no. 116 on page no 35 of the written
submissions.

There exists nothing in the book which might raise the perverted feelings or
thought of the person and there is no relation to any sexually overt act which
may trigger such emotions because book is a historical fictional write-up about
trus community and consists of no colour of vulgarity but of valour and respect
towards the Trus community.

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.
Also, your lordship if words like enchantress temptress, seeing women
unveiled in the cover pages incites the overtly sexual feeling and same is
deemed 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.
Your Lordship the counsel submits and as previously stated by my co-
counsel that there should be intellectual tolerance among people or else only
religious books will be sold in the market and there will be no space for artistic
and modern literary work. Hence, the petitioner, prima facie has committed no
act for which he is to be prosecuted and the FIR against him is liable to be
quashed and all the charges should be dropped.

If your lordships have no further questions then the counsel would like to move
to issue 4 .
Your Lordship the 4th issue concerns about the violation of the Right to
reputation of the Petitioner which is a fundamental right under enshrined under
Article 21 of the Constitution which in current case sis 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 w riter
by the statements issued in public.
The counsel seeks permission to quote Justice Ojha in Sanskrit what he
quoted in case of Kiran Bedi v. committee of inquiry mentioned under to depict
the importance of reputation the case is mentioned under footnote 136 and on
page no 37 of the written submissions “Akirtin chapi Bhutani Katha-ishyanti te-
a-vyayam, Sambhaaavitasya Chakirtir maranaa-dati-richyate." (234) (Men will
recount thy perpetual dishonour, and to one highly esteemed, dishonour exceeds
death.

It is evident that the Chief Minister’s statements in relation to the call for ban in
other states as well implies that the book of the petitioner is of no literary value.
YL such words by the head of the state is enough to cause major harm to the
reputation of petitioner as writer. This question the skills of the petitioner as
writer and also disregards his 10 years of hard work. The petitioner in the
current case has been subjected to disrepute due to over sensitiveness of the
authorities towards a particular community. The book in no way is causing any
disrepute or is defaming the Trus community yet without considering the status
quo and without assessing the nature of the book published, a blanket ban was
put on the book and also the Chief Minister made statements to ban the book in
other states causing major harm to the reputation of the book and of the writer
personally. Your lordship a good name is better than good riches the Petitioner's
name, his reputation was sullied among the whole artistic and literary
community, 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 violative of
petitioner’s right of speech and expression, of profess any
profession and reputation.
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.

The counsel rests its case. It was a pleasure pleading before this court and
counsel is thankful to your lordships for the considering the arguments and
for their time and indulgence.

Questions
Ru an Tu
he wrote this to glorify the valour of the brave King Sri, Queen Trusadi
and of all the Trus Community to depict that even they didn’t had the help of
the gods yet they didn’t surrendered against evil or adharma they abided by
their principles and never gave a free passage to evil till they had last drop of
blood left in them. It is clear from para 7 where he writes about the bravery of
Trus men and women and depicts them all as valorous.

The Facebook post read in its entirety pleads for equality of non-

tribals in the State of Meghalaya. In our understanding, there was no

intention on the part of the Appellant to promote class/community

hatred. As there is no attempt made by the Appellant to incite people

belonging to a community to indulge in any violence, the basic

ingredients of the offence under Sections 153 A and 505(1)(c) have

not been made out. Where allegations made in the FIR or the

complaint, even if they are taken on their face value and accepted in

their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a

case against the accused, the FIR is liable to be quashed7.

Anjani Gupta v. The State (NCT of Delhi) &Anr.

Read more at: https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/news/court-has-to-be-prima-facie-

satisfied-of-the-charges-alleged-against-the-accused-while-issuing-summons-under-ipc-

1860-delhi-hc-19985.asp

Your lordship dealing with a case prima facie means that dealing with a case on the basis of
such evidecnes on the basis of which the allegation in he FIR are being made.

Council don’t you think we should proceed for trial:-

Your lordship it is brought to the notice of the hon’ble Court that grave miscarriage of
justice would be committed if the trial in current case is allowed to proceed based
upon allegations which do not constitute offence as necessary indgridients are not
fulfilled and the accused would be harassed unnecessarily if the trial is allowed to
linger when prima facie it appears to Court that the trial would likely to be ended in
acquittal. Som Mittal Vs Govt. of Karnataka and Vima Divekar Vs Gautam Divekar

Conel don’t you think that dealing with the ingreidients would be dealing on merits
Indeed not your lordship because in the case of Vima Divekar Vs Gautam Divekar it
was held that when allegations in the FIR did not even prima facie show the
ingredients of the alleged offences against the

In case of Markandey Katiu v. Lok Sabha it was held that the author's view
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.

The when read as a whole must fall within the mischief of sections 153-A and 153-

B of the Code. If after reading the articles, we come to the conclusion that the

same are likely to promote ill-wilt, spite and hatred amongst the communities,

then the said articles or editorials will come within the mischief of section 153-A

and 153-B of the Code

It has been held in Joseph Bain D'Souza v. State  of  Maharashtra, 1995 Cr. LJ 1316,

that mere use of high-flown and caustic language due to emotional outburst

would not per se fall within the mischief of old sections 153A and 153B of the IPC

(para-27), the provisions whereof are similar to those of section 295A of the IPC.

\\\\\\\\\\\.