Before The Hon'Ble High Court of Tapovast: 10 Rgnul National Moot Court Competition, 2022

TC – 04R
10TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF TAPOVAST
IN THE MATTER OF:
SLOVAS MISHI……….…...………….……………………….PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF TAPOVAST………..………………………….....RESPONDENT
W.P. No. ____ of 2022 r/w Crl. M. P. No. ____ of 2022

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indicus read with
Section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)
Clubbed with
Crl. M. P. No. _____ of 2022

(Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)
As submitted to the Hon’ble Judges of the Hon’ble High Court of Tapovast
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

TABLE OF CONTENT
S. NO. TABLE OF CONTENTS PG. NO.
1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 15
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 16
5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES 18
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 19
7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 21
7(A). ISSUE I: WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE 21
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF TAPOVAST?
1.1. That the Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
Indicus read with Section 96 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 is not maintainable.
1.1.1. The present petition cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the
Constitution of Indicus.
1.1.2. The Petition cannot be entertained under Section 96 of the Cr.P.C.,
1973.
1.2. That the Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not maintainable.
7(B). ISSUE II: WHETHER THE BOOK AUTHORED AND PUBLISHED BY 25
THE PETITIONER ATTRACTS THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS
153-A, 153-B, 292 AND 295-A OF THE INDICUS PENAL CODE, 1860?
2.1 That the offence under Section 153-A of the Indicus Penal Code,
1860 is attracted.
2.2 That the offence under Section 153-B of the Indicus Penal Code,
1860 is attracted.
2.3 That the offence under Section 292 of the Indicus Penal Code,
1860 is attracted.
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS- 1 | P a g e

2.4 That the offence under Section 295-A of the Indicus Penal Code,
1860 is attracted.
7(C). ISSUE III. WHETHER THE FIRS FILED AND THE CHARGE SHEET 31
SUBMITTED AGAINST THE PETITIONER ARE LIABLE TO BE
QUASHED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, 1973?
7(D). ISSUE IV: WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT 33
FOR BANNING THE BOOK OF PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 95 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 IS LIABLE TO BE
QUASHED?
4.1. That the Order passed by the Respondent is intra-vires to the
Constitution of Indicus.
4.1.1. That the Order passed by the Respondent does not impinge upon the
literary freedom guaranteed by the Constitution of Indicus.
4.1.2. That the Order passed by the Respondent put reasonable restrictions on
the Petitioner’s FR to carry his business.
4.2. That the grounds of opinion stated in the Order passed by the
Respondent constitute the offences alleged in it.
8. PRAYER 40

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
S. NO. ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION
1. ¶ Paragraph
2. @ At
3. & And
4. A.I.R. All India Reporter
5. Anr. Another
6. Art. Article
7. Assoc. Association
8. Bom. Bombay
9. Cl. Clause
10. Const. Constitution
11. Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure
12. Crl. M. P. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
13. CrLJ Criminal Law Journal
14. Del. Delhi
15. Ed. Edition
16. F.R. Fundamental Right
17. Govt. Government
18. H.P. Himachal Pradesh
19. HC High Court
20. Hon’ble Honorable
21. http Hypertext Transfer Protocol

22. I.L.R. Indian Law Reports
23. IPC Indicus Penal Code
24. Ltd. Limited
25. M.P. Madhya Pradesh
26. Mad. Madras
27. MIB Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
28. Ors. Others
29. Pg. Page
30. Pvt. Private
31. r/w Read with
32. Retd. Retired
33. S.C. Supreme Court
34. S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases
35. S.C.R. Supreme Court Reporter
36. Sec. Section
37. U.P. Uttar Pradesh
38. u/s Under section
39. u/ss. Under sections
40. UOI Union of India
41. URL Universal Resource Locator
42. v. Versus
43. Vol. Volume
44. W.P. Writ Petition

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
S. NO. CASES PG. NO.
1. A.S. Bindra vs. Senior Superintendent of Police., 1998 CriLJ 3845, ¶ 2,4 24
2. Abdul Ali vs State of Kerala, 2015 (1) KLT 676, ¶ 4 21
3. Abdul Rasheed v State of Kerala, 2008 CrLJ 3480, ¶ 9 29
4. Ajay Goswami vs. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 493, ¶ 76 36
5. Anand Chintamani Dighe and Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., 34
2001 (103(2)) BOMLR 612, ¶ 6
6. Annie Besant vs. The Advocate General of Madras, 1919(21) BOMLR 26
867, ¶ 53
7. Antony v State of Kerala, ILR 1988 (2) Kerala 645, ¶ 7 28
8. Aveek Sarkar v State of WB, (2014) 4 SCC 257, ¶ 24 29
9. Baba Khalil Ahmed v State, AIR 1960 All 715, ¶ 27 31
10. Babu Rao Patel v State (Delhi Admn), AIR 1980 SC 763, ¶ 6 26
11. Baku Rao Patel v. The State, 1973 RLR 637, ¶ 14 36
12. Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 802, ¶ 20 21
13. Baragur Ramachandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, 2007 (3) ACR 22, 23,
2502 (SC), ¶ 3, 8, 9, 10, 18, 23, 95 35, 36
14. Barjinder Singh vs State of Punjab, (1993) 104 PLR 1, ¶ 19 37
15. Bhupal Gosh vs. Arif Ali, AIR 1974 SC 255, ¶ 4 36
16. Biplab Das v State, 2017 Cr LJ 644, ¶ 10 30
17. CBI v. Maninder Singh, 2016 SCC 1 389, ¶17 23
18. Chamba Valley Transport Ltd. vs State of HP, AIR 1953 HP 8, ¶ 13 21
19. Collector of Customs, Madras v. Sampathy C., AIR 1962 SC 316, ¶ 48 34
20. Common Cause vs. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 667, ¶ 38 22
21. CT Prim v State, AIR 1961 Cal 177, ¶ 11 29
22. Damodar Sarma v State of Assam, 2007 Cr LJ 1526, ¶ 8 28

23. Devidas Ramchandra Tuljapurkar vs State of Maharashtra, (2015) 6 SCC 37

1, ¶ 50, 128
24. Dhanalakshmi v. R.P. Kumar, AIR 1990 SC 494, ¶ 3 24
25. Dhanisha Karthika v Rakhi. N Raj, 2012 Cr LJ 3225, ¶ 34, 36 29
26. Didigam v State, 2008 Cr LJ 724, ¶10 23
27. Dir. of Public Prosecutions vs. Whyte, (1972) 3 All ER 12, ¶ 3 29
28. Divine Retreat Centre v State, 2008 Cr LJ 1891 (SC), ¶ 27 23, 32
29. Emperor v. Maniben L. Kara, 1933 CriLJ 231, ¶ 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 26, 27
30. Emperor vs. Narayan V. Phadke, AIR 1940 Bom 379, ¶ 8 27
31. Empress of India v. Indarman, ILR 3 All 837, ¶ 19 29
32. G. Jairaj & Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, 1998 KARLJ 2 522, 35
¶6
33. Gagan Behera vs. State of Orissa, 2002 CrLJ 696; ¶ 4 23, 32
34. Gian Singh v State of Punjab, 2012 Cr LJ 4934 (SC), ¶ 49, 61 23, 24
35. Gopal Vinayak Godse v. Union of India, AIR 1971 Bom 56, ¶ 35, 38, 64 21, 22, 26,
35
36. Hamida v. Rashid Alias Rasheed & Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 474, ¶ 7 24
37. Hanif Quareshi Mohd. & Ors. vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731, ¶ 29 35
38. Harnam Das v State of UP, AIR 1961 SC 1662, ¶ 11, 12, 13, 24 23, 38
39. Herold vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 SCC Online Mad 1030, ¶ 12, 29
13
40. In re: P. Ramaswamy, 1962 CriLJ 146, ¶ 2 29
41. Janata Dal v H.S. Chowdhary, (1993) Cr LJ 600, ¶ 137 23
42. Joseph Bain D'Souza And Another v. State of Maharashtra and 26

Others,1995 CRILJ 1316, ¶ 10
43. Joy Cherian v. Sub-Inspector of Police, 2015 AIC 152 614, ¶ 19 26
44. Kali Charan Sharma v Emperor, AIR 1927 All 649: 27 Cr LJ 968, ¶ 28 31
45. Karuna Shanker Rastogi v. Govt of India and Ors, P.I.L. Civil No. 2748 38
of 2018, ¶ 2

46. Khoday Distillers Ltd. v. State, (1995) 1 SCC 574, ¶ 64 37
47. Kochuni KK vs State, AIR 1960 SC 1080, ¶ 71 34
48. Lalai Singh Yadav v. State of U.P, 1976 Cr LJ 98, ¶ 45, 62. 25, 26
49. LIC vs. Prof. Manubhai D Shah, AIR 1993 SC 171, ¶ 5 34
50. M.L. Gautam vs Emperior, AIR 1936 All 561, ¶ 1, 12 23
51. M.L.C. Gupta vs Emperor, AIR 1936 All 314, ¶ 8 26
52. M.V. Vijayaraghavan State Youth Wing Convenor v. The Superintendent 35

of Police Another, 2014 AIR NOC 556, ¶ 30
53. M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 24
SCC Online SC 315, ¶ 8, 23
54. Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union vs. Municipal Corporate, Greater 37
Mumbai, AIR 2004 SC 416, ¶ 8
55. Maneka Gandhi v UOI, AIR 1978 SC 597, ¶ 80, 133 22, 34
56. Maninder Singh v. State, 2013 SCC Online P&H 14994, ¶ 15 30
57. Maqbool F. H. v. Rajkumar Pandey, 2008 CRLJ 4107, ¶ 29 28
58. Maulana Azizul Haq Kausar Naqvi v. State, 1980 CriLJ 448, ¶ 57 26
59. Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966), ¶ 3 28
60. MM Haries v State of Kerala, (2005) Cr LJ 3314 (Ker), ¶ 3 28
61. Mohammed Shariff v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC Online Kar 1532, 25, 27
¶ 16, 13.
62. N Soundaram v PK Pounraj, (2014) 10 SCC 616, ¶ 14 23
63. N. Veerabrahmam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1959 SCC Online AP 28, 22, 30
¶ 8, 30, 55-57
64. N.K. Bajpai vs. UOI, AIR 2012 SC 1310, ¶ 7, 31 22
65. Nachiketa Walhekar vs. Central Board of Film Certification and Ors., 37
2018 (5) ALLMR 945, ¶ 4
66. Nand Kishore Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1986 Pat 98, ¶ 17 38
67. Narayan Dev v State, AIR 1952 Ori 149, ¶ 7 31
68. Narayanan v State, (1970) Ker LT 605, ¶ 3 28

69. Nissan Motors India Pvt. Ltd. vs CCI, (2014) 5 MLJ 267, ¶ 37 21
70. O. K. Ghosh and Another vs E.X. Joseph, AIR 1963 SC 812, ¶ 9 35
71. Padal Venkata v. Kovvuri Reddy, 2011 SCC 12 437, ¶ 11, 12 32
72. Patricia Mukhim vs. State of Meghalaya, AIR 2021 SC 1632, ¶ 11 27
73. Piara Singh Bhaniara vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (2009) 3 PLR 766, ¶ 4 28
74. Pradeep Pattanshelly v. State of U.P., 2003 LCD 21 1458, ¶ 5 22
75. Public Prosecutor v AD Sabapathy, ¶ 1 28
76. Public Prosecutor v Ramaswami, AIR 1964 Mad 258, ¶ 8 30
77. PUCL vs. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568, ¶ 19 34
78. R v Dixon, 3 M&S 11 29
79. R v Hari Singh, 28 ILR All 100 30
80. R v Vishnu K. Puranik, (1913) 14 CrLJ 248, ¶ 2 30
81. R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab, 960 SCR (3) 311, ¶ 6 32
82. R.V. Bhasin v State of Maharashtra, 2012 Cr LJ 1375 ¶ 28 26
83. Ram M. Lohia v. State, 1966 CRI LJ 608, ¶ 54 36
84. Ram P. Sadarangani vs. Emperor, AIR 1945 Sindh 106, ¶ 16 26
85. Ramji Lal Modi v. State Of U.P, 1957 CRI LJ 1006, ¶ 8, 9 30, 35
86. Ramleela Maidan vs. Home Secretary, UOI (2012) 5 SCC 1, ¶ 6 34
87. Ranjit D Udeshi v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 Bom 268, ¶ 7, 8 28, 29
88. Rex v. Lemon, (1979) I All EH 898, ¶ 7 25
89. Ritesh Aggarwal v. SEBI, (2008) 8 SCC 205, ¶ 25 37
90. Sada Nand v. State (Delhi Admin.), 1986 RLR 394, ¶ 9 28
91. Saghir Ahmed vs. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 728, ¶ 18 37
92. Sagolsem Indramani Singh and Ors. v. State of Manipur, 1955 CRILJ 184, 36
¶ 20
93. Samimul Islam and Ors. vs State, 2020 (1) MLJ (Crl) 593, ¶ 59 27
94. Sanapareday Maheedhar Seshagiri v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2007) 13 32

SCC 165, ¶ 31

95. Sant Maheshwari v. Babu R. Jodoin, AIR 1969 All 436, ¶ 11 30
96. Santokh Singh vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1973 SC 1091, ¶ 6 36
97. Satya Ranjan Bakshi & Anr. v. Emperor, 1929 SCC Online Cal 366, ¶ 16 26
98. Secretary, GoI v. Alka Subhash Gadia, 1190 SCR, Supl (3) 583, ¶19 22
99. Secretary, MIB vs. Cricket Assoc. of Bengal, 1995 AIR SC 1236, ¶ 4 34
100. Shalibhadra Shah and Others v. Swami Krishna Bharati and Another, 1981 27
CriLJ 113, ¶ 4
101. Sharad J. Rao v. Subhash Desai & Ors, 1991 SCC Online Bom 159, ¶ 28 26
102. Shib Sharma v Emperor, AIR 1941 Oudh 310, ¶ 12 27
103. Shikher Bhandari vs. State; 2021(1) ALJ 254, ¶10 24
104. Shiv Ram Dass Udasin v. State, 1955 CRI LJ 337, ¶ 34 30, 31
105. Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523, ¶ 13 36
106. Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC 32
OnLine SC 958, ¶ 41
107. Som Mittal v Government of Karanataka, 2008 Cr LJ 1927 (SC), ¶3, 7, 9 23
108. Sr. Licia Joseph Smi v. Lucy Kalappura and Ors., 2019 SCC Online Ker 38
20651, ¶ 1
109. State of Andhra Pradesh v P Sugar, AIR 1968 SC 1379, ¶ 9 27
110. State of Bihar and Anr. vs. K.J.D. Singh, 1993 (41) BLJR 1401, ¶ 3, 4 24
111. State of Gujarat vs. Shantialal Mangaldas, AIR 1969 SC 634, ¶ 53 35
112. State of Haryana v Ch. Bhajanlal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, ¶ 105, 106 24, 32
113. State of Maharashtra & Ors vs Sangharaj Damodar Rupawate & Ors, 22, 38
[2010] 7 SCC 398 ¶ 22, 25
114. State of Maharashtra v. Arun Gulab Gawali, (2010) 9 SCC 701, ¶ 13 32
115. State of Mysore v Henry Rodrigues, (1962) 2 Cr LJ 564, ¶ 5 30, 31
116. State of Orissa v Saroj Kumar Sahoo, (2005) 13 SCC 540, ¶11 23
117. State of Orissa vs. Ram Chandra Dev, AIR 1964 SC 685, ¶ 8 21
118. State of U.P. vs. Lalai Singh Yadav, 1976) SCC (Cri) 556, ¶ 5, 7, 10, 14 22, 25,
26, 34, 38

119. State v Habib Abdullah Jeelani, (2017) 2 SCC 779, ¶12, 14 23
120. Subal Kumar Dey v State of Tripura, (2007) Cr LJ 1195, ¶ 6 25
121. Subhash Popatlal Dave v. UOI and another, 2012 CRI LJ 3848, ¶ 43 22
122. Sudhir Kumar Panda v. State of Orissa, 2013 Cr LJ 4779, ¶ 8 25
123. Sujato Bhadra v State of West Bengal, (2006) Cr LJ 368 (Cal) (FB), ¶ 13.1 31
124. Sushil Suri v CBI, AIR 2011 SC 1713, ¶11 23
125. TGN Kumar v State of Kerala, AIR 2011 SC 708, ¶10 23
126. The King vs. Nga S. Hpi and Ors., AIR 1939 Rangoon 199, ¶ 4 30
127. Union of India v. Ali Mohammed 2002 CRI LJ 3722, ¶ 9 22
128. Usha Uthup v State of WB, AIR 1984 Cal 268, ¶ 28 34
129. V.S Narayanan v. B.G Sridhar, 1997 ALT Cri 2 836, ¶ 9 24
130. Vinod Sah vs. State, 2020 SCC Online Pat 2127, ¶ 7 22
131. Vinoy Kumar vs. State of U.P., AIR 2001 SC 1739, ¶ 2 22
132. Virendra vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 896, ¶ 9 36
133. Vishambhar D. Tripathi v. Emperor, AIR 1941Oudh 33, ¶ 27 26
S. NO. JOURNAL ARTICLES PG. NO.
1. Chandana Arval, A Conceptual and Legal Analysis on How Film Censorship 23

Hampers the Freedom of Artistic Expression, 3 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF
LAW & PUBLIC POLICY 22 (2017).
2. N. Kaushik, Scope of the Powers of the High Court Under Section 482 of the Code 34
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 8 JOURNAL FOR LEGAL STUDIES 129
(2013).
3. R. Kavin Prasath, Powers of High Courts in India, 5 INTERNATIONAL 27
JOURNAL OF PURE AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS 285 (2018).
4. R.K. Yadav, Quashing and Cancellation of FIR in India: A Study of Legislative 32
and Judicial Trends, 6 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LAW &
SOCIETY 251 (2014).

5. Romit Ahuja, Test to Determine Reasonable Restrictions Under Article 19 of the 37

Constitution of India, 3 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LAW &
LEGAL RESEARCH 198 (2012).
S. NO. BOOKS PG. NO.
1. 1 H M SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (4th ed. 24, 28

Universal Law Publishing Co. 2012)
2. 1 RATANLAL & DHIRAJ LAL, INDIAN PENAL CODE (34th ed. 33, 38
LexisNexis 2018).
3. 1 SARKAR, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (12th ed. LexisNexis 23, 32
2018).
4. 2 DD Basu, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (6th ed. LexisNexis 37
2017).
5. 2 DD BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (16th ed. 25, 28
LexisNexis 2021).
6. 2 RA NELSON, INDIAN PENAL CODE (11th ed. LexisNexis 2015). 24, 34
7. 2 SANJIVA ROW & M L SINGHAL, CODE OF CRIMINAL 27, 36

PROCEDURE, (4th ed. Universal Law Publishing 2016)
8. 2 SURENDRA MALIK, SUPREME COURT ON BAIL, 28, 35
ANTICIPATORY BAIL AND QUASHMENT (2nd ed. Eastern Book
Company 2019).
9. 3 ARVIND P DATAR, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION 24, 33
OF INDIA, (2nd ed. LexisNexis 2010).
10. 4 J K SOONAVALA, SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL DIGEST (1950- 23, 37
2015), (6th ed. LexisNexis 2016).
11. 4 SOHONI, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (22nd ed. LexisNexis 26, 28
2016)
12. C.K. TAKWANI, INDIAN PENAL CODE (2nd ed. Eastern Book 28, 37
Company 2022).
13. CHAUDHARY, LAW OF WRITS (1st ed., Law Publishers Pvt. Ltd 1956). 34, 36

14. DR. BENNY PAUL & TINA BENNY, SIMPLIFIED APPROACH TO 25, 29
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (4th ed. Sree Ram Law House 2022).
15. K.N. CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, R.V. KELKAR’S CRIMINAL 29, 32
PROCEDURE (7th ed. Eastern Book Company 2020).
16. KD GAUR, TEXTBOOK ON THE CODE OF CRIMINAL 33, 37
PROCEDURE (2nd ed. LexisNexis 2016).
17. KD GAUR, TEXTBOOK ON THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (7th ed. 35, 38
LexisNexis 2020).
18. KUMAR ASKAND PANDEY, B.M. GANDHI’S INDIAN PENAL 28
CODE (4th ed. Eastern Book Company 2017).
19. M P JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (8th ed. LexisNexis 2018) 24, 28, 29
20. P. ISHWARA BHAT, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: A STUDY OF 25, 32, 34

THEIR INTERRELATIONSHIP (Easter Law House 2004).
21. PROF. S.N. MISRA, INDIAN PENAL CODE (22nd ed. Central Law 25
Publications 2020).
22. RATANLAL & DHIRAJ LAL, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 24, 36, 35
(23rd ed. LexisNexis 2017).
23. SUBHASH C KASHYAP, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: A 23, 26, 31
HANDBOOK FOR STUDENT (1st ed. Vitasta Publishing Pvt. Ltd 2019)
24. THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION. (1st 32, 34
Oxford University Press 2016).
25. VN SHUKLA’S, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (13th ed. Eastern Book 24, 27, 34
Company 2019).
S. NO. ONLINE ARTICLES PG. NO.
1. Bharat Vasani, Varun Kannan, Supreme Court on Section 482 CrPC – Have the 23, 27
inherent powers of High Courts been diluted?, CAM (Mar. 04, 2022),
https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2021/05/supreme-court-on-
section-482-crpc-have-the-inherent-powers-of-high -courts-been-diluted/
2. Chhatrapati Shivaji Mandir, Sindhudurg, MAPIO (Mar. 07, 2022), 32, 34
https://mapio.net/pic/p-13237207/

3. Guru Gobind Singh ji’s life resonates with a universal message that showed the masses can 31
be motivated to rise against tyrants: Vice President, PRESS INFORMATION
BUREAU, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (Mar. 04, 2022)
https://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=154310.
4. History of Sri Muktsar Sahib, SRI MUKSTAR SAHIB (Mar. 04, 2022) 31
https://muktsar.nic.in/history/
5. Section 153A IPC - Deliberate & Malicious Intent Necessary; 'Disturb Public 28
Tranquility' Does Not Mean Normal Law & Order Issues: Supreme Court,
LIVELAW (Mar 4, 2022), https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/153a-ipc-
intent-public-tranquility-supreme-court-166979
6. Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Judgments on High Courts' Power [2021], 30
LIVELAW (Mar 4, 2022), https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/section-482-
crpc-supreme-court
-judgments-2021-188542?from-login=539377
S. NO. STATUTES
1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (Universal Law Publishing, 2017).
2. The Constitution of India, (Universal Law Publishing, 2017).
3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Universal Law Publishing, 2017).
S. NO. DICTIONARIES
1. BRYAN. A. GARNER, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, (8th ed. West Thompson

2004)
2. DR. A. R. LAKSHMANA J, WHARTON’S LAW LEXICON (15th ed. Universal Law
Publishing Co., 2011)
3. P. RAMANATHA IYER, THE LAW LEXICON (2nd ed. 2002)
4. SHORTER OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (5th ed. Oxford University Press

2002)
5. THE CHAMBERS DICTIONARY, DELUXE EDITION (15th ed. Allied Chambers
(India) Pvt Ltd. 2011)

S. NO. ONLINE DATABASE
1. AIR Online (All Indian Reporter)
2. EBC
3. Jstor
4. Live law
5. Manupatra
6. SCC Online

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
W.P. No. ____ of 2022 r/w Crl. M. P. No. ____ of 2022

The Petitioner has endorsed their pleading before this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of Indicus read with Section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The present
memorandum filed on behalf the Respondent challenges the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court in
the above-mentioned matter. It sets forth the facts and laws on which the claims are based.
Crl. M. P. No. _____ of 2022

The Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The present memorandum filed on behalf the Respondent challenges the
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court in the above-mentioned matter. It sets forth the facts and laws
on which the claims are based.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
ABOUT THE BOOK
(¶1.) In April 2021, Slovas Mishi [hereinafter referred to as “the Petitioner”], a 55 years-old Indicus
citizen, authored and published a book titled “Blood & Fire in Tapovast”. The book is based on
the historical 21st war fought by the significant and influential community, the Trus.
HISTORY OF THE TRUS COMMUNITY
(¶2.) The Trus Community are original inhabitants of the Tapovast region in Indicus. Historically,
they were skilled in the art of warfare and have always been a chivalrous community. As per the
history of Indicus, the Trus community have bravely fought against numerous invaders and
safeguarded the Indicus territory from many foreign invasions. They have a distinct reputation of
fighting against the Rak - a tribe that frequently invaded Indicus and came from a faraway foreign
land, Rakstar. The history also suggests that the Trus and Rak have fought around 21 battles, out
of which the Trus lost 11. The 21st battle was the one initiated by the Draks led Rak Army with
the sole motive to capture Trus Queen, Trusadi. Unfortunately, the Trus lost the battle against the
Draks which left an indelible scar on the Trus Community as it was not only brutal but also tragic.
PUBLIC OUTRAGE AGAINST THE BOOK
(¶4.) Following the Petitioner’s book release, the book shops & stalls selling “Blood & Fire in
Tapovast” were vandalized by the people. There were also violent clashes reported in several parts
of Indicus, particularly in the State of Tapovast between the Trus & Non - Trus people who
supported Petitioner’s work. The CM of Tapovast, Mr. Yoda Trudis also came in support of the
Trus Community and condemned the Petitioner’s book. The portrayal of the Queen Trusadi, King
Sri and the mythological figures, Ru & Tu in the book were unacceptable to the Trus Community.
LEGAL ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST THE BOOK
(¶5.) A few days after the book was published, an NGO by the name of “Trus Swabhiman
Sangathan” filed FIRs u/ss. 153-A, 153-B, 292 & 295-A of the IPC, 1860. The charge sheet was
submitted in the matter by the Police at the end of May, 2021. Apart from this, in June 2021, the
Government of Tapovast [hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent”] had also banned the Petitioner’s
book u/s 95 of the Cr.P.C, 1973.

THE CASE
(¶6.) The Petitioner has approached the Hon’ble HC of Tapovast and filed the present petitions
challenging the State Government’s order and the FIRs filed against him.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE I:
WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE

HON’BLE HIGH COURT TAPOVAST?
ISSUE II:
WHETHER THE BOOK AUTHORED AND PUBLISHED BY THE PETITIONER

ATTRACTS THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 153-A, 153-B, 292 AND 295-A OF
THE INDICUS PENAL CODE, 1860?
ISSUE III:
WHETHER THE FIRs FILED AND THE CHARGE SHEET SUBMITTED AGAINST
THE PETITIONER ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973?
ISSUE IV:
WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR BANNING THE

BOOK OF PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 95 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, 1973 IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE I: WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE
HIGH COURT TAPOVAST?
It is humbly submitted that the petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of Indicus r/w
Sec. 96 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 is not maintainable because both of them are equally efficacious
remedies which can be practiced independently. Assuming that the Hon’ble HC can use its
discretion and try the matter under one of it, it is submitted that the pre-requisites to move the
court under the said jurisdictions are not met. The writ petition filed under Art. 226 is not
maintainable because the order passed by the State Government u/s 95 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 comes
within the purview of reasonable restrictions provided under Art. 19(2) & Art. 19(6) of the
Constitution of Indicus. Apart from this, the petition filed u/s 96 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 is also not
maintainable because the matter contained in the impugned book attracts the offences u/ss. 153-
A, 153-B, 292 and 295-A of the IPC, 1860. Lastly, the miscellaneous petition filed u/s 482 of the
Cr.P.C., 1973 to quash the FIRs and Charge sheet submitted against the Petitioner is not
maintainable because offences are made out from the allegations mentioned therein.
ISSUE II: WHETHER THE BOOK AUTHORED AND PUBLISHED BY THE PETITIONER
ATTRACTS THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 153-A, 153-B, 292 AND 295-A OF THE INDICUS
PENAL CODE, 1860?
It is humbly submitted that the offences constituted u/ss. 153-A, 153-B, 292 and 295-A of the
IPC, 1860 are attracted in the present matter. Firstly, Sec. 153-A of IPC, 1860 is attracted because
the mens rea is present in the instant matter as the language used in the book are in terms of an
insult. It disparaged the glorious history, status and religion of the Trus Community and led to the
excited feeling of enmity between two distinct communities. Secondly, Sec. 153-B of IPC, 1860 is
attracted because the publication of derogatory assertions in the book concerning the religious &
community obligations of Trus Community have caused feelings of hatred between them and
other persons, thereby prejudicing the national integration and causing a problem of law and order
in the State. Thirdly, Sec. 292 of IPC, 1860 is attracted in the present case because passages written
in the impugned book are “obscene” as the tone and tenor of the words used in it have induced
immoral influence upon the readers of the book about their pious Queen. Additionally, the Cover
page of the book comes within the mischief of Sec. 292 as it excites impure thoughts of lust in the
minds of any rational reader. Lastly, Sec. 295-A of IPC, 1960 is attracted because the Petitioner
had “malicious” and deliberate” intention to outrage the religious feelings of Trus Community that

can be derived from the grossly offensive & provocative words used by the Petitioner in his book
to characterize the gods of the Trus Community.
ISSUE III: WHETHER THE FIRS FILED AND THE CHARGE SHEET SUBMITTED AGAINST
THE PETITIONER ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973?
It is humbly submitted that the FIRs filed and the Charge sheet submitted against the petitioner
are not liable to be quashed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 because none of the parameters to quash an
F.I.R./Charge sheet mentioned in the landmark case of Bhajan Lal is attracted. The contention
that the first parameters is attracted is irrelevant and untenable because the said parameter allows
the quashment of the FIRs and the charge sheet if the allegations mentioned in it do not prima
facie satisfies the ingredients of the offences. As proved in the previous issue, the charges u/ss.
152-A, 153-B, 292 & 295-A of IPC, 1860 are attracted against the Petitioner in the present matter,
thereby not leading to the quashment of the impugned FIRs and the Charge sheet.
ISSUE IV: WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR BANNING THE BOOK
OF PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 95 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 IS
LIABLE TO BE QUASHED?
It is humbly submitted that the impugned order passed by the Respondent is not liable to be
quashed because firstly, it is intra-vires to the Constitution of Indicus. It imposes reasonable
restrictions on the Petitioner’s constitutionally protected literary freedom enshrined under Art.
19(1)(a) of the Constitution in the interest of public order, morality/decency, and incitement of an
offence. Apart from this, the Petitioner’s right to practice business is also reasonably restricted in
the interest of public welfare and it doesn’t impose total prohibition on him to practice his
business. Thus, the impugned order is intra-vires to the constitution of Indicus and is not liable to
be quashed under Art. 226. Secondly, the publication of the Petitioner’s book attracts all the offences
mentioned in the impugned forfeiture order, thereby not empowering the Hon’ble Court to quash
it under Sec. 96 of Cr.P.C., 1973 as well.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE I: WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF TAPOVAST?
(¶1.) The Counsel for the Respondent respectfully submits that the present petitions filed before
the Hon’ble High Court of Tapovast under Art. 226 of the Constitution of Indicus r/w Sec. 96 of
the Cr.P.C., 1973, [1.1.] and Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 [1.2.] are not maintainable.
1.1. That the Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indicus read with
Section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not maintainable.
(¶2.) It is humbly submitted that the Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court under Art. 226
of the Constitution of Indicus r/w Sec. 96 of the Cr.P.C, 1973. It is pertinent to note that it is
absurd on the behalf of Petitioner to move this Court under both Art. 226 of the Constitution and
Sec. 96 of the Cr.P.C, 1973. Both of these are equally efficacious remedies which can be practiced
independently and have no mandate to be brought together for attaining one common objective.
The Petitioner has caused serious prejudice to the Respondent by moving the court under both
the jurisdictions and amounted to the abuse of process of law. Arguendo, assuming that the Hon’ble
Court can use its discretion and try the matter under one of it, it is contended that the pre-requisites
to move the court under the said jurisdictions are not met in view of the factual matrix of the case.
1.1.1. The present petition cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of
Indicus.
(¶3.) It is respectfully contended that the writ jurisdiction of the HC prescribed under the
Constitution of Indicus confers certain wide powers which empower the HC to issue writs for the
enforcement of the constitutional or legal rights.1 The said jurisdiction has to be exercised by the
HC with circumspection and abundant caution.2 Specifically, for the purpose of quashment of the
order passed under Sec. 95 of the Cr.P.C, 1973, the aforementioned jurisdiction can be invoked
when there is a gross violation of the FRs,3 which is not present in the instant case. In addition to
this, the action has been taken in accordance with the statutory requirements prescribed u/s 95, 4
1Indian Const. art. 226; see also: State of Orissa vs. Ram Chandra Dev, AIR 1964 SC 685, ¶ 8; Common Cause vs.
UOI, (1999) 6 SCC 667, ¶ 38; Vinoy Kumar vs. State of U.P., AIR 2001 SC 1739, ¶ 2; Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs
Union of India & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 802, ¶ 20.; Chamba Valley Transport Ltd. vs State of HP, AIR 1953 HP 8, ¶ 13.
2 Vinod Sah vs. State, 2020 SCC Online Pat 2127, ¶ 7; Nissan Motors India Pvt. Ltd. vs CCI, (2014) 5 MLJ 267, ¶ 37.
3 Gopal Vinayak Godse vs. UOI., AIR 1971 Bom 56, ¶ 296; Abdul Ali vs State of Kerala, 2015 (1) KLT 676, ¶ 4.
4 State of Maharashtra and Ors. vs. Sangharaj Damodar Rupawate and Ors., 2010 CriLJ 4290, ¶ 25.

and keeping in mind the public policy of maintaining national integrity and public tranquility
among the citizens of Tapovast.5 Hence, for these reasons, it is submitted that the Petitioner has
no locus standi to approach the Hon’ble HC under Art. 226 of the Constitution of Indicus.
(¶4.) It is also to bring to the attention of this Hon’ble Court that the FRs under Art. 19(1)(a) &
Art. 19(1)(g) are not absolute or untouchable rights.6 The State has an authority to impose
reasonable restrictions by due authority of law in the interest of national integrity, security,
sovereignty, public order, decency, morality etc.7 The order passed by the State Government u/s
95 of the Cr.P.C. has been classified as a reasonable restriction as held by the Indicus Courts in
catena of its judgements.8 Therefore, the author or publisher of the book cannot use artistic
license/literary freedom as an excuse to disrupt the balance created for the exercise of FRs under
Part III of the Constitution, especially when the exercise of it raises an issue of law and order in
the society. In the present case, following the publication of Petitioner’s book, there were several
instances reported of the violent clashes amongst the masses in several parts of Indicus, particularly
in Tapovast; and the bookstores selling the forfeited book were also vandalized. Additionally, the
contents of the said book were found offensive to the morality and decency. Therefore, for these
reasons, the forfeiture order passed by the State Government is intra-vires to the Constitution of
Indicus.
(¶5.) Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that Art. 226 of the Constitution is not an absolute right
and is subject to the self-imposed restraints evolved by the judiciary. 9 It has been held since Art.
226 confers “extraordinary jurisdiction”, the same must be used sparingly and in circumstances
where no alternative efficacious remedy is available.10 Specifically, in the cases u/s 95 of the Cr.P.C,
1973, it must only be invoked, if the forfeiture order passed by the Government is groundless, 11
or the limitation period to approach the Court u/s 96 of the Cr.P.C. has expired, 12 which is not
the case in the instant matter. Though, the Petitioner could move the court u/s 96 of the Cr.P.C.,
5N. Veerabrahmam vs. State of A.P., 1985 CRI LJ 1651, ¶ 8; The State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Lalai Singh Yadav, (1976)
4 SCC 213, ¶ 5, 7, 14; Baragur Ramachandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, 2007 (3) ACR 2502 (SC), ¶ 8, 9, 10.
6 N.K. Bajpai vs. UOI, AIR 2012 SC 1310, ¶ 7, 31; Pradeep Pattanshelly v. State of U.P., 2003 LCD 21 1458, ¶ 5.
7 Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
8 Baragur Ramachandrappa v State of Karnataka, 2007 CrLJ 2933, ¶ 3; Gopal Godse v. UOI, AIR 1971 Bom 56, ¶ 35.
9 Secretary, GoI v. Alka Subhash Gadia, 1190 SCR, Supl (3) 583, ¶19; UOI v. Ali Mohammed 2002 CRI LJ 3722, ¶ 9.
10 Subhash Popatlal Dave v. Union of India and another, 2012 CRI LJ 3848, ¶ 43.
11 Piara Singh Bhaniara vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (2009) 3 PLR 766, ¶ 4.
12 N. Veerabrahmam Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1959 AP 572, ¶ 55-57.

1973, but the pre-requisites for invoking the said jurisdiction are not met by him, as proved in the
due course of arguments.
1.1.2. The Petition cannot be entertained under Section 96 of the Cr.P.C., 1973.
(¶6.) The Counsel for the Respondent would like to bring to the notice of this Hon’ble Court that
the State Government has a power to forfeit certain publications u/s 95 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, when
such a printed publication contains any matter which constitutes the ‘offences’ listed in cl. (1)(b)
of the aforementioned provision.13 In the instant case, the Respondent has issued a notification of
forfeiture against the book authored and published by the Petitioner on the grounds of opinion
that the matter mentioned therein constitutes an offence u/ss 153A, 153B, 292 and 295A of the
IPC, 1860. These grounds of opinion stated in the forfeiture order fully satisfy the essential
ingredients of the offences alleged in it. The book is an affront to the various practices and
perspectives of the Trus Community. The ancient culture and religion of the Trus people has been
severely desecrated. Not only does it objectify Trus women and offend their gods but is
intentionally written to denigrate the noble and heroic lineage of Trus warriors and the community
at large. Therefore, the matter contained in the impugned book comes within the purview of
‘objectionable matter’,14 and doesn’t attract Sec. 96 for the quashment of the forfeiture order.15
(¶7.) Therefore, in the light of the aforementioned contentions, the Respondent submits that the
present petition is neither maintainable before this Hon’ble Court under Art. 226 of the
Constitution of Indicus nor under Sec. 96 of the Cr.P.C., 1973.
1.2. That the Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is
not maintainable.
(¶8.) The Counsel for the Respondent humbly submits that the Hon’ble HC is vested with
inherent powers that can be exercised “to prevent any abuse of the process of law”, “to secure the
ends of justice” or “to give effect to an order under the Code”.16 It is a trite law that the said power
must be used sparingly, on impelling consideration and that too in the rarest of rare cases.17 It
13 The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 §. 95, cl. 1.

14Baragur Ramchandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, 1999 (1) ALT (Cri) 408, ¶ 23; M.L. Gautam vs Emperior,
AIR 1936 All 561, ¶ 1, 12; Harnam Das v State of UP, AIR 1961 SC 1662, ¶ 24.
15 The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 §. 96, cl. 1.
16Gagan Behera vs. State of Orissa, 2002 CrLJ 696; ¶ 4; Divine Retreat Centre v State, 2008 Cr LJ 1891 (SC), ¶ 27;
Gian Singh v State of Punjab, 2012 Cr LJ 4934 (SC), ¶ 49; N Soundaram v PK Pounraj, (2014) 10 SCC 616, ¶ 14.
17CBI v. Maninder Singh, 2016 SCC 1 389, ¶17; State v Habib Abdullah Jeelani, (2017) 2 SCC 779, ¶12; State of
Haryana v Ch. Bhajan & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, ¶ 106; Som Mittal v Government of Karanataka, 2008 Cr LJ 1927
(SC), ¶3, 7, 9; TGN Kumar v State of Kerala, AIR 2011 SC 708, ¶10; Sushil Suri v CBI, AIR 2011 SC 1713, ¶11.

should not be used to hamper a legitimate prosecution.18 The nature of power conferred to the
Hon’ble HC u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 is wide, and such power should be used circumspectly,
diligently and with utmost care.19 This inherent jurisdiction must only be used when there is a
patent illegality and miscarriage of justice,20 which is not present in the instant case. The Petitioner
has not made out any case for this Hon’ble Court to exercise its rarest of rare power.
(¶9.) It is pertinent for this Hon’ble Court to note that the power of quashing an FIR and any
subsequent proceeding taken thereof, has to be used only in those cases where the parameters laid
down in Ch. Bhajan Lal.21and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.22 are met. The said
parameters have no relevance in the instant case as the essential ingredients of the offences with
which the Petitioner is charged in the FIRs and Chargesheet are prima-facie met. In addition to this,
it is significant to note that while exercising power u/s 482, this Hon’ble Court cannot go into the
merits of the allegations as the authority to do the same lies with the Trial Court.23 Therefore, the
Petitioner has not been able to provide any valid rationale for this Hon’ble Court to use its power
u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 and stifle with the legitimate prosecution of the Petitioner before the
Trial Court.
(¶10.) Additionally, the Counsel for the Respondent submits that in the instant case, the Police
has only submitted the Charge sheet after a successful completion of their investigation. Neither
any cognizance has been taken by the Trial Judge nor any processes have been issued in furtherance
of it. It is a settled law that the petition u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 can only be exercised for the
quashing of FIR/Chargesheet after the cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate and processes
24
have been issued. The Hon’ble Court cannot use it inherent powers to cut-short the criminal
trial and pass an order before the aforementioned stage. 25
(¶11.) Hence, in the light of aforementioned contentions, the present Crl. Misc. Petition filed
under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.
18 State of Orissa v Saroj Kumar Sahoo, (2005) 13 SCC 540, ¶11; Didigam v State, 2008 Cr LJ 724, ¶10; N Soundaram
v PK Pounraj, (2014) 10 SCC 616, ¶14; Janata Dal v H.S. Chowdhary, (1993) Cr LJ 600, ¶ 137.
19 M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC Online SC 315, ¶ 8; Gian Singh v. State
of Punjab & Anr., 2012 SCALE 9 257, ¶ 61.

20 Hamida v. Rashid Alias Rasheed & Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 474, ¶ 7.
21 AIR 1993 SC 1348, ¶ 105.
22 2021 SCC Online SC 315, ¶ 23.
23 Dhanalakshmi v. R.P. Kumar, AIR 1990 SC 494, ¶ 3; V.S Narayanan v. B.G Sridhar, 1997 ALT Cri 2 836, ¶ 9.
24A.S.Bindra vs. Senior Superintendent of Police., 1998 CriLJ 3845, ¶ 2,4; Shikher Bhandari vs. State; 2021(1) ALJ
254, ¶10.
25 State Of Bihar and Anr. vs. K.J.D. Singh, 1993 (41) BLJR 1401, ¶ 3, 4.

ISSUE II: WHETHER THE BOOK AUTHORED AND PUBLISHED BY THE

PETITIONER ATTRACTS THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 153-A, 153-B, 292
AND 295-A OF THE INDICUS PENAL CODE, 1860?
(¶12.) The Counsel for the Respondent would like to humbly submit before this Hon’ble Court
that the book authored and published by the Petitioner attracts the offences u/ss. 153-A, 153-B,
292 and 295-A of the IPC, 1860. It is contended that the essential ingredients for the offences
u/ss. 153-A (Promoting disharmony or enmity between different groups), [2.1] 153-B (Imputation, assertions
prejudicial to national integration), [2.2] 292 (Sale of obscene books), [2.3] and 295-A (Malicious acts to outrage
religious feelings of any class) [2.4] of the IPC, 1860 are met in view of the factual matrix of the present
case.
2.1. That the offence under Section 153-A of the Indicus Penal Code, 1860 is attracted.
(¶13.) It is respectfully submitted that Sec. 153-A of the IPC, 1860 is enacted with an objective
to prevent breach of public peace which might emanate from excited separatist tendencies between
different classes of people on the grounds of religion, race, language, caste, community etc. 26 If a
person by written words “promotes” or “attempts to promote” enmity, disharmony or hatred
amongst different religious, racial, linguistic groups, castes or community on the basis of
aforementioned grounds, then the offence u/s 153-A is attracted.27
(¶14.) It is contended that the impugned book is written by the Petitioner with a motive to vilify
the Trus Community through a deliberate disparagement of their glorious history, status and
religion. The publication of this book has incited violence between distinct communities and
created a problem of law & order in Tapovast. The book in question is offensive and disdainful
which can be perceived from the indecent portrayal of Queen Trusadi by calling her an
“enchantress” & “temptress”; depicting her as seductress in a fallacious romantic dream;
characterizing the gods of Trus, i.e., “Ru” & “Tu” as cowards and lastly, an unfounded narration
of King Sri leaving the battlefield to have the last glimpse of Queen Trusadi etc.28
(¶15.) It is pertinent for this Hon’ble Court to note that the words and language used in the book
are in terms of an insult, offence and ridicule, thereby attracting an offence u/s 153-A.29 The
26Indian Penal Code 1860 §.153-A, cl.1(a); see also: Sudhir Kumar Panda v. State of Orissa, 2013 Cr LJ 4779, ¶ 8.
27 Id; see also: Mohammed Shariff v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC Online Kar 1532, ¶ 16.
28 Moot Proposition, ¶ 9, 10, 12, 19.
Rex v. Lemon, (1979) I All EH 898, ¶ 7; Lalai Singh Yadav v. State of U.P, 1976 Cr LJ 98, ¶ 45; Maulana Azizul
29
Haq Kausar Naqvi v. State, 1980 CriLJ 448, ¶ 57; Subal Kumar Dey v State of Tripura, (2007) Cr LJ 1195, ¶ 6.

natural inference of the words used in the book must be taken into consideration to determine the
guilt of the Petitioner,30 and he cannot take the defense that the language does not mean to take
the meaning that it naturally does.31 Elaborating over this, the Counsel submits that the usage of
words “enchantress” and “temptress” in the book to describe Queen Trusadi leads to a natural
inference that the Petitioner deliberately characterized her as a seductress and someone who has
deliberately attracted Draks towards her, thereby insulting the pious Queen of Tapovast who is
idolized for her valiance and chastity. In addition to this, the Petitioner has shown several fallacious
facts of which there is no historical account like the romantic dream that Draks had for Queen
Trusadi; Trus Gods being afraid of Draks and; lastly, King Sri leaving the battlefield mid-way to
have the last glimpse of his Queen. This disloyalty towards history proves that he has distorted
historical facts to promote hatred between distinct communities.32 Even if the facts were true, it is
a trite law that historical truth cannot be taken as a defense to mitigate the liability u/s 153-A,33
especially when the writing is mischievous in nature.34
(¶16.) It is pertinent for this Hon’ble Court to note that the mens rea need not be proved when the
feeling of enmity between different communities has already been promoted as the “promotion”
implies “intention” and the Court will presume that the accused intended the natural consequences
that resulted from his act of promoting.35 Even if such an intention has to be gathered, the same
must be gathered from the language used in the book.36 If the language used in the book is patently
scurrilous and offensive as in the present case, then the mala-fide intention of the author must be
presumed.37 The publication of a book which presents a derogative image of the renowned
historical figures & gods of a particular community is bound to spread hatred among them and
the other readers who hold contrary beliefs with regards to their conscience, religion, faith and
history.38 The same has happened in the instant case as the publication of the impugned book led
30Ram P. Sadarangani vs. Emperor, AIR 1945 Sindh 106, ¶ 16; Annie Besant vs. The Advocate General of Madras,
1919(21) BOMLR 867, ¶ 53; Satya Ranjan Bakshi & Anr. v. Emperor, 1929 SCC Online Cal 366, ¶ 16.
31 Vishambhar D. Tripathi v. Emperor, AIR 1941Oudh 33, ¶ 27; Emperor v. Maniben L. Kara, 1933 CriLJ 231, ¶ 2.
32 Gopal v. Godse v. UOI., AIR 1971 Bom 56, ¶ 64; Joy Cherian v. Sub-Inspector of Police, 2015 AIC 152 614, ¶ 19.
33R.V. Bhasin v State of Maharashtra, 2012 Cr LJ 1375 ¶ 28, Babu Rao Patel v State (Delhi Admn), AIR 1980 SC 763,
¶ 6; Joseph Bain D'Souza And Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others,1995 CRILJ 1316, ¶ 10.
34 supra note 32.
35 1 RA NELSON, INDIAN PENAL CODE 1115 (12 ed., LexisNexis 2018).
36 M.L.C. Gupta vs Emperor, AIR 1936 All 314, ¶ 8.
37 Lalai Singh Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1975 SCC OnLine All 185, ¶ 62.
38 Sharad J. Rao v. Subhash Desai & Ors, 1991 SCC Online Bom 159, ¶ 28.

to violent clashes between the Trus Community and the Non-Trus Community who supported
Petitioner’s work. The contention that the book is a fictional work based on historical facts also
holds no value as the words written in the preface are not taken into consideration to judge the
guilt of the author.39 Therefore, the presence of mens rea on the part of Petitioner to excite the
feelings of hatred between the aforesaid communities is undisputed & needs no further
deliberation before this Hon’ble Court.
(¶17.) Furthermore, the Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Trus Community and the
Non-Trus community who supported Petitioner’s work shall be considered to be two distinct
communities since they are definite, numerous, and ascertainable. 40 In addition to this, both of
these communities are two distinct homogeneous sections of people who are grouped together
due to their common likeness.41 The reliance shall also be placed on the judgments of Patricia
Mukhim vs. State Of Meghalaya42 & Mohammed Shariff v. State of Karnataka43, wherein
the Indicus Courts held that the communities like “Tribal”- “Non-Tribal” & “Muslims”- “Non-
Muslims” as two distinct communities within the meaning of Sec. 153-A of the IPC, 1860.
(¶18.) Therefore, in the light of the aforementioned contentions, the Counsel for the Respondent
submits that the offence u/s. 153-A has been met in view of the factual matrix of the present case.
2.2. That the offence under Section 153-B of the Indicus Penal Code, 1860 is attracted.
(¶19.) It is humbly submitted that the making or publication of any imputations or assertions
which are prejudicial to the national integration constitute an offence u/s 153-B of IPC, 1860.44
This section will be attracted, if anyone publishes/imputes regarding any “class of persons”
showing no allegiance to the true values of the Constitution of India; or assert the denial of their
legal rights or affirm regarding the duties of a “class of persons”; which causes disharmony
amongst them and other people.45 In the context of the present case, the third and last limb of this
provision mentioned under clause (c) is attracted since the Petitioner has published assertions
concerning the obligations of the Trus Community, thereby causing disharmony between them
and other persons. The Petitioner has insulted the gods of the Trus Community, i.e., Ru and Tu
39 Shib Sharma v Emperor, AIR 1941 Oudh 310, ¶ 12.

40 Emperor vs. Maniben Kara, AIR 1933 Bom 65; ¶ 5-9; Emperor vs. Narayan V. Phadke, AIR 1940 Bom 379, ¶ 8.
41 State of Andhra Pradesh v P Sugar, AIR 1968 SC 1379, ¶ 9.
42 AIR 2021 SC 1632, ¶ 11.
43 2020 SCC Online Kar 1532, ¶ 13.
44 Shalibhadra Shah and Others v. Swami Krishna Bharati and Another, 1981 CriLJ 113, ¶ 4.
45 Indian Penal Code 1860 §.153-B, cl.1; see also: Samimul Islam and Ors. vs State, 2020 (1) MLJ (Crl) 593, ¶ 59.

by depicting them as cowards as well as maligned the image of Queen Trusadi by passing numerous
derogatory remarks on her character. It is pertinent to note that Ru and Tu are worshipped in the
month of Kartik (November) for a period of 5 days and nights, whereas, the Queen Trusadi has a
temple dedicated to her, wherein she is idolized for her valiance and chastity by the Trus
Community.46 The publication of said derogatory assertions in the impugned book by the
Petitioner concerning the religious & community obligations of Trus Community have caused
feelings of hatred & enmity between them and other non-Trus people who supported the
impugned book, thereby prejudicing the national integration and causing the problem of law and
order in the State. Therefore, in the light of the aforementioned contentions, the offence u/s 153-
B of the IPC, 1860 is attracted in view of the facts of the case.
2.3. That the offence under Section 292 of the Indicus Penal Code, 1860 is attracted.
(¶20.) It is humbly submitted that a legal ban on obscene material is crucial to safeguard the moral
values on which there is an unanimity.47 Sec. 292 is enacted with the basic purpose of preventing
an erosion of “moral standards” which is bound to happen by constant exposure to obscene
materials. The said provision is attracted when there is a public sale, circulation and distribution of
alleged “obscene” material, which is present in the instant case.48 In general terms, “obscenity”
means something that is “offensive, to modesty or decency, lewd, filthy, repulsive.”49 However, as per the
sec., a writing or publication shall be deemed to be “obscene”, if it is “lascivious”, or appeals to
the “prurient interest”, or has a tendency to “deprave” & “corrupt” persons. 50
(¶21.) It is pertinent to note that the “Contemporary Community Standard Test” is used by the Indicus
Courts to adjudge the obscenity of material in question by taking into consideration the standards
of morality in contemporary society.51 For the said purpose, it is necessary to take into account the
“class of readers” that the alleged obscene material is likely to come by.52 As the book containing
obscene material is based on the history of Trus, the people belonging to the Trus Community
will be most interested in reading the said book. The book contains several obscene passages which
disrespects the historical figures of the Trus Community. In the instant book, the Petitioner has
46 Clarification pg. 5, Q. 39; Moot Proposition, ¶ 11; Moot Proposition, ¶ 9.

47 Damodar Sarma v State of Assam, 2007 Cr LJ 1526, ¶ 8; Narayanan v State, (1970) Ker LT 605, ¶ 3.
48 Indian Penal Code 1860 §. 292; see also: MM Haries v State of Kerala, (2005) Cr LJ 3314 (Ker), ¶ 3.
49 Ranjit D Udeshi v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 881, ¶ 7; Public Prosecutor v AD Sabapathy, ¶ 1.
50 Sada Nand v. State (Delhi Admin.), 1986 RLR 394, ¶ 9; Maqbool F. H. v. Rajkumar Pandey, 2008 CRLJ 4107, ¶ 29.
51 Devidas R. Tuljapurkar v. State of Maharashtra, ¶ 50; Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966), ¶ 3.
52 Antony v State of Kerala, ILR 1988 (2) Kerala 645, ¶ 7.

described the Queen Trusadi as “enchantress” & “temptress”. The natural meaning of these words
depicts Queen Trusadi as a woman who tempted Draks towards her for venereal needs.53 The tone
and tenor of these words have caused mental shock to the readers of the book and induced
immoral influence upon them about their pious queen.54 Furthermore, the Petitioner has vividly
narrated a romantic dream that Draks had for Queen Trusadi, wherein the Queen is seducing him,
thereby appealing to the prurient interests of the readers and arousing corrupt and lascivious
feelings in their minds.55 The Petitioner in the impugned book has written about the glorious
history of the Trus community mischievously. The depiction of the same in an obscene manner is
well outside the accepted standards of the Trus community in contemporary times. Apart from
this, it is also pertinent to note that it is not necessary for the book as a whole to be obscene in
nature.56 Even if there are certain passages that are obscene, it is enough to bring the entire book
within the mischief of Sec. 292.57 In addition to this, if the party contends to have bona fide intention
or affirms that there are certain moral excerpts in the book, it acts as no defence to the publication
of obscene literary works.58
(¶22.) Lastly, the Counsel would like to draw the attention of this Hon’ble Court towards the case
of Aveek Sarkar v State of WB59, wherein the Hon’ble SC of Indicus has held that, “A picture
alleged to be obscene has to be viewed in the background in which it was shown, and the message it has to convey to
the public and the world at large”. In the instant case, the cover page of the impugned book contains a
picture of Queen Trusadi without a veil, represented in a dancing position between King Sri and
Draks. She is shown as a seductress trying to tempt the two men, King Sri and Draks, towards her.
Therefore, considering the background and message to be conveyed from the cover page, it shall
be termed as obscene as it excites impure thoughts of lust in the minds of any rational reader.
Hence, for the reasons stated above, the book consists of several obscene items due to which it
comes within the mischief of Sec. 292 of the IPC, 1860.
53 SHORTER OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY 1123 (5 ed. Oxford University Press 2002).
54 Dhanisha Karthika v Rakhi. N Raj, 2012 Cr LJ 3225, ¶ 34, 36.
55Dir. of Public Prosecutions vs. Whyte, (1972) 3 All ER 12, ¶ 3; Abdul Rasheed v State of Kerala, 2008 CrLJ 3480,
¶ 9.
56 Ranjit D Udeshi v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 Bom 268, ¶ 8.
57 CT Prim v State, AIR 1961 Cal 177, ¶ 11; Empress of India v. Indarman, ILR 3 All 837, ¶ 19.
58 R v Hari Singh, 28 ILR All 100; R v Vishnu K. Puranik, (1913) 14 CrLJ 248, ¶ 2; R v Dixon, 3 M&S 11.
59 (2014) 4 SCC 257, ¶ 24; see also: Herold vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 SCC Online Mad 1030, ¶ 12, 13.

2.4. That the offence under Section 295-A of the Indicus Penal Code, 1860 is attracted.
(¶ 23.) It is humbly submitted that a literary freedom of a writer doesn’t involve liberty to make
offensive & disparaging attacks against the religion or religious beliefs of a section of people.60
Section 295-A of the IPC, 1860 penalizes those individuals who with “deliberate” and “malicious”
intention outrage the religious feelings of any “class of persons” through words, either spoken or
written, by insulting or making an attempt to insult their religion or religious beliefs. 61 The presence
of a “malicious” & “deliberate” intention is sine qua non of the offence u/s 295-A.62 In the instant
case, it is contended that the Petitioner has outrage the religious feelings of the Trus Community
with a “malicious” and “deliberate” intention.
(¶ 24.) It is pertinent for this Hon’ble Court to note that the “Ru” and “Tu” are two gods revered
by the Trus Community for guarding them from all evils. They are worshiped for 5 days and nights
in the month of Kartik (November) by the Trus Community. Apart from this, their supreme,
devotional and spiritual character can also be drawn from sacred book of Trus, i.e., Trusvit.
However, in the book in question, the Petitioner has hurted the religious sentiments of the Trus
Community by portraying their invincible gods as cowards who were afraid of facing the Rak
Army. It is a settled law that, “If the language used transgresses the limits of decency and is designed to vex,
annoy and outrage the religious feelings of others, the malicious intention of the writer can be inferred from the
language employed by him.”63 In the impugned book, the words used by the Petitioner to characterize
the gods will undisputedly be regarded as grossly offensive & provocative by any rational
individual.64 Therefore, it is incontrovertible that the Petitioner has maliciously and deliberately
insulted the deities of Trus Community in the impugned book.
(¶25.) It is further submitted that the impugned book has deliberately and maliciously maligned
the image of Queen Trusadi by passing numerous derogatory remarks on her character and
showing her as a seductress in the book & its cover page. Queen Trusadi is a sacred woman and
has a temple dedicated to her in the State of Tapovast. The contention that ‘Queen Trusadi is a
mere warrior’, will not hold any value as she can be classified as an integral part of the religion of
the Trus community. In order to contend the same, the Counsel would like to draw an analogy
60 N. Veerabrahmam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1959 SCC Online AP 28, ¶ 30.

61Indian Penal Code 1860 §. 295-A; see also: Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 620, ¶ 9; Biplab Das v
State, 2017 Cr LJ 644, ¶ 10; In re: P. Ramaswamy, 1962 CriLJ 146, ¶ 2.
62Sant Maheshwari v. Babu R. Jodoin, AIR 1969 All 436, ¶ 11; Public Prosecutor v Ramaswami, AIR 1964 Mad 258,
¶ 8.
63 State v. Henry Rodrigues, 1962 CRI LJ 564, ¶ 5; Maninder Singh v. State, 2013 SCC Online P&H 14994, ¶ 15.
64 The King vs. Nga S. Hpi and Ors., AIR 1939 Rangoon 199, ¶ 4; Shiv Ram Dass Udasin vs State of Punjab, ¶ 34.

with Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji, who was the 10th Guru and a brave warrior of Sikh Community.65
He fought with great valor in numerous battles against Mughals and is worshipped by numerous
followers of Sikh Community in the present times.66 Despite him being a warrior, the Indicus
Courts have held him to be sacred, thus, any derogatory remarks passed on him will come within
the mischief of Section 295-A of the IPC, 1860. 67 Additionally, the Select Committee Report on
Section 295-A has affirmed that any person held to be sacred by the followers of the community
will come within the ambit of this provision.68 Therefore, the position of Queen Trusadi in the
Trus Community holds the Petitioner liable for the offence u/s 295-A as he has outraged the
religious beliefs of the Trus Community by describing her character in a disparaging manner.
(¶26.) Lastly, it is submitted that there is n Petitioner has unquestionably outraged the religious
feelings of Trus Community deliberately. He has himself admitted that he has written this book
over a course of 10 years. Therefore, the content of this publication is pre-mediated and not
conceived all of sudden, which indicates that the Petitioner has deliberate intention to outrage the
religious feelings of Trus Community.69 Furthermore, the distortion of historical facts by the
Petitioner leads to an inference of mens rea on the part of Petitioner.70 Even if it was a historical
truth, the same cannot be taken as a defense to mitigate the liability u/s 295-A of the IPC, 1860.71
(¶27.) Therefore, in the light of aforementioned contentions, the Counsel for the Respondent
submits that the offence u/s 295-A of the IPC, 1860 is attracted in view of the facts of the case.
ISSUE III: WHETHER THE FIRs FILED AND THE CHARGE SHEET
SUBMITTED AGAINST THE PETITIONER ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED
UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973?
(¶28.)The Counsel for the Respondent would like to humbly submit that the Hon’ble HC is vested
with inherent powers u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 that can be exercised by the Court “to prevent
any abuse of the process of law”, “to secure the ends of justice” or “to give effect to any order
65Guru Gobind Singh ji’s life resonates with a universal message, PRESS INFORMATION BUREAU, GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA (Mar. 04, 2022, 3:30 PM) https://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=154310.
66 History of Sri Muktsar Sahib, SRI MUKSTAR SAHIB (Mar. 04, 2022, 4:15 PM) https://muktsar.nic.in/history/
67 Shiv Ram Dass Udasin v. State, 1955 CRI LJ 337, ¶ 34.
68 Gazette of India, dated 17-9-1927, pt. 5, p 252.
69 Narayan Dev v State, AIR 1952 Ori 149, ¶ 7.
70 Sujato Bhadra v State of West Bengal, (2006) Cr LJ 368 (Cal) (FB), ¶ 13.1.
71Baba Khalil Ahmed v State, AIR 1960 All 715, ¶ 27; Kali Charan Sharma v Emperor, AIR 1927 All 649: 27 Cr LJ
968, ¶ 28; State of Mysore v Henry Rodrigues, (1962) 2 Cr LJ 564, ¶ 5.

under this Code”.72 The nature of power conferred to the Hon’ble HC u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C.,
1973 is discretionary and wide, that should be only used sparingly and not to smother a legitimate
prosecution.73 It entrusts upon the Court an onerous duty that must be used with great
circumspection and not to “soft-pedal the course of justice”. 74
(¶29.) It is submitted that the power of the HC u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 to quash an
F.I.R./Chargesheet should be an exception not an ordinary rule. 75 In order to exercise the said
power, the Court cannot go into the merits or demerits of the allegations contained in the FIR.76
Although, while keeping in mind these principles, the Hon’ble HC may quash an F.I.R./Charge
sheet u/s 482, if it thinks fit that the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble SC of Indicus in the
cases of R. P. Kapur77 and Ch. Bhajan Lal78 are fulfilled. In the aforementioned cases, the
Hon’ble SC of Indicus gave the following circumstances in which the F.I.R./Charge sheet can be
quashed:
a. When the allegations mentioned in the FIR., even if accepted to be true, do not constitute an
offence under any law.
b. When the FIR. or any other material submitted does not disclose any cognizable offence.
c. When the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and the evidence submitted to corroborate
the same does not disclose any case against the accused.
d. When the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but only a non-
cognizable offence.
e. When allegations have no sufficient grounds since they are absurd and inherently improbable.
f. When there is an express legal bar to the institution or continuance of the proceedings due to
the provisions of this Code or any Act for that matter.
g. When the criminal proceedings are filed with malicious intention to seek private vengeance.
(¶30.) It is pertinent for this Hon’ble Court that none of the aforementioned parameters are
attracted in the present case. The contention that the essential ingredients of the offences with
which the Petitioner is charged, i.e., Sec. 153-A, 153-B, 292 & 295-A of the IPC, 1860 is untenable.
72 Gagan Behera vs. State of Orissa, 2002 CrLJ 696; ¶ 4; Divine Retreat Centre v State, 2008 Cr LJ 1891 (SC), ¶ 27.
73 Padal Venkata v. Kovvuri Reddy, 2011 SCC 12 437, ¶ 11, 12; State v. Habib Abdullah J., (2017) 2 SCC 779, ¶ 14.
74 State of Maharashtra v. Arun Gulab Gawali, (2010) 9 SCC 701, ¶ 13.
75 Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 958, ¶ 41.
76 Sanapareday Maheedhar Seshagiri v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2007) 13 SCC 165, ¶ 31.
77 R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab, 960 SCR (3) 311, ¶ 6.
78 State of Haryana v Ch. Bhajanlal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, ¶ 105.

The same has already been proved by the Counsel in the previous issue. However, for the
convenience of this Hon’ble Court, the Counsel for the Respondent would like to put in brevity
the rationales that proves sufficient case is made out against the Petitioner in the FIRs and the
Chargesheet submitted thereof:
a. Sec. 153-A of IPC, 1860 is attracted because the mens rea is present in the instant matter as the
words and language used in the book are in terms of an insult, offence and ridicule. It disparaged
the glorious history, status and religion of the Trus Community and led to the excited feeling
of enmity between them and the non-Trus community who supported the work of the
Petitioner.
b. Sec. 153-B of IPC, 1860 is attracted because the publication of derogatory assertions in the
Petitioner’s book concerning the religious & community obligations of Trus Community have
caused feelings of hatred & enmity between them and other non-Trus people who supported
the impugned book, thereby prejudicing the national integration and causing a problem of law
and order in the State.
c. Sec. 292 of IPC, 1860 is attracted in the present case because passages written in the impugned
book are “obscene” as the tone and tenor of the words used in it have caused mental shock to
the readers of the book and induced immoral influence upon them about their pious queen.
Additionally, the Cover page of the book comes within the mischief of Sec. 292 as it excites
impure thoughts of lust in the minds of any rational reader.
d. Sec. 295-A of IPC, 1960 is attracted because the Petitioner had “malicious” and deliberate”
intention to outrage the religious feelings of Trus Community that can derived from the grossly
offensive & provocative words used by the Petitioner in his book to characterize the gods of
the Trus Community.
(¶31.) Therefore, as the essential ingredients of the aforementioned offences are made out on the
bare perusal of the allegations in the FIRs, the FIRs filed and the Chargesheet submitted against
the Petitioner is not liable to be quashed u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973.
ISSUE IV: WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR

BANNING THE BOOK OF PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 95 OF THE CODE
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED?
(¶32.) The Counsel for the Respondent would like to humbly submit before this Hon’ble Court
that the order passed by the Respondent for banning the book of Petitioner u/s 95 of the Cr.P.C.,
1973 is not liable to be quashed because it is intra-vires to the Constitution of India, [4.1.]and the

publication of Petitioner’s book is also punishable under all of the offences mentioned in the
forfeiture order and on the grounds stated therein in support of it. [4.2.]
4.1. That the Order passed by the Respondent is intra-vires to the Constitution of
Indicus.
(¶33.) It is humbly submitted that impugned order imposes reasonable restrictions on the
Petitioner’s constitutionally protected literary freedom, [4.1.1.] & his right to practice business
[4.1.2.], thereby not curtailing his FR enshrined under Art. 19(1)(a) & Art. 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of Indicus respectively.
4.1.1. That the Order passed by the Respondent does not impinge upon the literary
freedom guaranteed by the Constitution of Indicus.
(¶34.) It is humbly submitted that Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of Indicus entitles every Indicus
citizen with a fundamental right to “Freedom of Speech & Expression”.79 It gives liberty to all
Indicus citizens to freely propagate their ideas or viewpoints through any medium. 80 The literary
freedom of every author like the Petitioner is also recognised as an intrinsic part of Art. 19(1)(a) 81.
However, this constitutional freedom, like any other, is not absolute in nature, but subject to
certain reasonable restrictions as enumerated under Art. 19(2) of the Constitution of Indicus.82
(¶35.) It is pertinent for this Hon’ble Court to note that Art. 19(2) of the Constitution provides
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of liberties enshrined under Art. 19(1)(a) in the interest of
sovereignty & integrity of the nation, public order, security of state, morality/decency, incitement
of an offence, etc.83 These reasonable restrictions are included by the founding fathers of our
Constitution to ensure orderliness in society and avert anarchy.84 It assists the State in striking a
balance between individual freedom & social control.85
(¶36.) It is humbly submitted that the State has a duty of maintaining public harmony and ensuring
that the people who have opposing beliefs and bigotries are not offended by the harshly and rigidly
79 INDIAN CONST. art. 19, cl. 1(a); see also: Secretary, MIB vs. Cricket Assoc. of Bengal, 1995 AIR SC 1236, ¶ 4.
80 PUCL vs. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568, ¶ 19; LIC vs. Prof. Manubhai D Shah, AIR 1993 SC 171, ¶ 5.
81 Maneka Gandhi v UOI, AIR 1978 SC 597, ¶ 80; Usha Uthup v State of WB, AIR 1984 Cal 268, ¶ 28.
82 Anand Chintamani Dighe and Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2001 (103(2)) BOMLR 612, ¶ 6.
INDIAN CONST. art. 19, cl. 2; see also: Ramleela Maidan vs. Home Secretary, UOI (2012) 5 SCC 1, ¶ 6; Maneka
83
Gandhi v UOI, AIR 1978 SC 597, ¶ 133.

84 1 DD BASU, THE SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 302, 308 (16th ed. LexisNexis 2021)
85Collector of Customs, Madras v. Sampathy C., AIR 1962 SC 316, ¶ 48; Kochuni KK vs State, AIR 1960 SC 1080,
¶ 71.

written publications, which may result into violent clashes in the State.86 The same has also been
affirmed in the case of the State of U.P. vs. Lalai Singh Yadav87, wherein the Hon’ble SC of
Indicus has held that, “in the interests of public order and public peace, public power comes into play not because
the heterodox few must be suppressed to placate the orthodox many but because everyone's cranium must be saved
from mayhem before his cerebrum can have chance to simmer.” Therefore, even though free expression of
opinions is a rule for human advancement, reasonable curbs need to be put in place for the survival
of the society when public peace is breached.88
(¶37.) It is contended that in the instant case, the book authored by the Petitioner has portrayed
the historical and religious figures of the Trus Community in a disparaging and insultive manner.
This has led to the disturbance of public tranquility and disruption of public order in the State of
Tapovast. In furtherance of these instances and taking into consideration the procedural
requirements laid down u/s 95 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, the Respondent has imposed a ban on the
sale, circulation and distribution of the Petitioner’s book. The said prohibition is a reasonable
restriction pressed on the literary freedom of Petitioner in the interest of public order,
morality/decency and incitement of an offence as enshrined under Art. 19(2) of the Constitution
of Indicus.89
(¶38.) It is a settled principle that a legitimacy of a restriction imposed on the exercise of freedoms
enshrined under Art. 19 has to be adjudged from the viewpoint of public interest and not from
the angle of the individual upon whom such restriction has to be imposed.90 Therefore, a restriction
cannot be said to be unreasonable on the sole reason that it is harsh, if it is in the interest of the
general public.91 In the instant case, after the commencement of sale & distribution of Petitioner’s
book in Tapovast, several incidents of vandalization of bookshops selling the impugned book and
violent clashes between different classes of people have come into knowledge of the Respondent.
Therefore, in the interest of the general public, the said restriction has been imposed by passing
an order u/s 95 of the Cr.P.C., 1973.
86 State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Lalai Singh Yadav, AIR 1977 SC 202, ¶ 7.
87 (1976) SCC (Cri) 556, ¶ 14.
88M.V. Vijayaraghavan State Youth Wing Convenor v. The Superintendent of Police Another, 2014 AIR NOC 556,
¶ 30; O. K. Ghosh and Another vs E.X. Joseph, AIR 1963 SC 812, ¶ 9.
89Gopal Vinayak Godse vs The Union of India and Ors., AIR 1971 Bom 56, ¶ 38; G. Jairaj & Others v. State of
Karnataka and Others, 1998 KARLJ 2 522, ¶ 6; Baragur Ramachandrappa and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.,
2007 (3) ACR 2502 (SC), ¶ 18.
90 Hanif Quareshi Mohd. & Ors. vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731, ¶ 29.
91 State of Gujarat vs. Shantialal Mangaldas, AIR 1969 SC 634, ¶ 53.

(¶39.) At this outset, the Counsel would like to draw the attention of this Hon’ble Court towards
the 3 concepts which need to be understood to know the reach of “freedom of speech &
expression”, i.e., “discussion”, “advocacy” and “incitement”. These 3 concepts have been
explained vividly in the case of Shreya Singhal vs. UOI92, wherein the Hon’ble SC of Indicus has
held that, “Mere discussion or advocacy of a particular cause howsoever unpopular is at the heart of Article
19(1)(a). It is only when such discussion or advocacy reaches the level of incitement that Article 19(2) kicks in.”.
Under Art. 19(2), “Incitement of an offence” is a ground of reasonable restriction that limits the
enjoyment of freedom under Art. 19(1)(a) to those expressions or speech which causes an offence
under criminal law.93 It is at this stage such a liberty to freely express needs to be curtailed. As
proved in the previous issue, the book authored by the Petitioner attracts offences u/ss. 153-A,
153-B, 292 and 295-A of the IPC, 1860, thereby justifying the restriction imposed by the forfeiture
order of Respondent passed u/s 95 of the Cr.P.C., 1973.
(¶40.) Furthermore, the instances of vandalization of book stalls selling Petitioner’s books &
violent clashes reported between the Trus Community and Non-Trus Community who supported
Petitioner’s work, has disturbed the “Public Order” of the State, thereby attracting curtailment of
Petitioner’s literary freedom under Art. 19(2). In the context of Art. 19(2), “Public Order'' has a
wider meaning and includes all those instances which disturbs or has a tendency to disturb the
“general current” of public life.94 Keeping in the mind the aforementioned instances, it is
undisputed that the same is disrupted in the instant case. Henceforth, the Respondent has rightly
passed the present forfeiture order to avert public disorder, specifically, preventing communal
disharmony between aforementioned distinct communities, 95 and prohibiting ridicule of religious
beliefs of the Trus Community.96 Thus, the order has reasonably restricted the literary freedom of
the Petitioner in the interest of Public Order that is evidently disturbed in the State of Tapovast.
(¶41.) In addition to this, it is contended that the book published by the author also infringes the
standards of “morality” of a society.97 The book describes the pious Queen of Tapovast, as
92 AIR 2015 SC 1523, ¶ 13.
93 Santokh Singh vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1973 SC 1091, ¶ 6.

94 Virendra vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 896, ¶ 9; Bhupal Gosh vs. Arif Ali, AIR 1974 SC 255, ¶ 4; Ram M. Lohia
v. State, 1966 CRI LJ 608, ¶ 54; see also: MP JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTION 1085 (8th ed. LexisNexis 2021).
95Id.; Sagolsem Indramani Singh and Ors. v. State of Manipur, 1955 CRILJ 184, ¶ 20; Baku Rao Patel v. The State,
1973 RLR 637, ¶ 14.
1 DD BASU, THE SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 347 (16th ed. LexisNexis 2021); see also: Ramji Lal
96
Modi v. State Of U.P, 1957 CRI LJ 1006, ¶ 8.

97 Ajay Goswami vs. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 493, ¶ 76.

“enchantress” & “temptress”. Additionally, the Petitioner has narrated a fallacious romantic dream
that Draks had for Queen Trusadi, wherein the Queen is seducing him. Lastly, the cover page of
the book also intends to depict Queen Trusadi as seductress and give an immoral & indecent
message to the public at large. Therefore, it can be derived from this that the Petitioner in the
impugned book has written about the glorious history in an obscene manner, which is well outside
the accepted standards of the Trus community in contemporary times, especially when such
obscene words or depiction is alluded with the historical & religious figures. 98
(¶42.) Lastly, it is submitted that the contention of Petitioner of having an artistic license to express
his ideas in multitudinous ways by using his choice of words, even if it ends up being didactic or
puritanical in nature, holds no value. It is a settled law that a limitation can be imposed on such an
artistic license in terms of prescription in law. 99 As proved in the previous issue, the impugned
book attracts offences u/ss. 153-A, 153-B, 292 & 295-A of the IPC, 1860, thereby curbing the
artistic license of the Petitioner & fulfilling the criteria to impose a ban on the Petitioner’s work
u/s 95 of the Cr.P.C., 1973.
4.1.2. That the Order passed by the Respondent put reasonable restrictions on the
Petitioner’s FR to carry his business.
(¶43.) It is humbly submitted that Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of Indicus entitles every Indicus
citizen to choose & carry his business, profession, trade or occupation freely, subject to the
restrictions imposed by the State in the interest of public welfare. 100 These restrictions can be
imposed under a valid law in force and by an executive order.101 They are imposed in the interest
of general public by striking a balance between an individual liberty & social control.102 Similarly,
an order u/s 95 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 is also passed in furtherance of maintaining public order,
public peace and tranquillity in society. It is also pertinent to remember that the restriction imposed
under this provision doesn’t totally prohibit anyone to practice their business. Like, in the instant
matter, the Petitioner is only prohibited to carry his business pertaining to impugned book, &
nothing more than that. The said prohibition imposed on the Petitioner is a reasonable and partial
restriction as affirmed under Barjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab103.
98 Devidas Ramchandra Tuljapurkar vs State of Maharashtra, (2015) 6 SCC 1, ¶ 128.
99 Nachiketa Walhekar vs. Central Board of Film Certification and Ors., 2018 (5) ALLMR 945, ¶ 4.
100 INDIAN CONST. art. 19, cl. 1(g) & 6; see also: Saghir Ahmed vs. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 728, ¶ 18.
101 Ritesh Aggarwal v. SEBI, (2008) 8 SCC 205, ¶ 25; Khoday Distillers Ltd. v. State, (1995) 1 SCC 574, ¶ 64.
102 Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union vs. Municipal Corporate, Greater Mumbai, AIR 2004 SC 416, ¶ 8.
103 (1993) 104 PLR 1, ¶ 19.

(¶44.) Additionally, in the instant case, there is no question on the propriety of order passed u/s
95 of Cr.P.C., 1973. The Petitioner’s work was banned u/s 95 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 on the grounds
of opinion that it constitutes an offence u/s 153-A, 153-B, 292 and 295-A of IPC, 1860. As proved
in the previous issue, all the aforementioned offences have been met by the book in question.
Therefore, the forfeiture order issued by the Respondent is a reasonable restriction on the
Petitioner’s fundamental right prescribed under Art. 19(1)(g).
(¶45.) Hence, in the light of aforementioned contentions, it is submitted that the order passed by
the Respondent is intra-vires to Art. 19(1)(a) & Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of Indicus, thereby
not liable to be quashed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of Indicus.
4.2. That the grounds of opinion stated in the Order passed by the Respondent constitute
the offences alleged in it.
(¶46.) It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Sec. 95(1) of the Cr.P.C., 1973
empowers the State Government to pass an order of forfeiture, if any publications contains a
matter constituting an offence u/ss. 124-A, 153-A, 153-B, 292, 293 & 295-A of the IPC, 1860.104
In the instant case, the Respondent has passed an order u/s 95(1) against the Petitioner’s book as
the matter contained in it constitutes the offences u/ss. 153-A, 153-B, 292 & 295-A of the IPC,
1860. The order issued by the Respondent has stated the grounds of opinion in brief, which
explicitly affirms the tendency or effect of the content contained in the impugned book. 105 It is
pertinent to note that Sec. 95 doesn’t require all the essential ingredients of offences must be
proved to the “satisfaction” of the State Government.106 It should just appear to be present. The
burden of proof to rebut the prima facie opinion of the Respondent is on the Petitioner, which he
has not been able to successfully disprove.107 Therefore, after due consideration of the grounds
mentioned by the State Government, it is submitted that the matter contained in the publication
in question attract all the offences mentioned in the forfeiture order, thereby not empowering this
Hon’ble HC with any authority to quash it u/s 96 of the Cr.P.C., 1973.108 The offences have already
been proved by the Counsel in the previous issue. However, for the convenience of this Hon’ble
The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 s. 95, cl. 1; see also: Sr. Licia Joseph Smi v. Lucy Kalappura and Ors., 2019
104
SCC Online Ker 20651, ¶ 1; Karuna Shanker Rastogi v. Govt of India and Ors, P.I.L. Civil No. 2748 of 2018, ¶ 2.
105State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Sangharaj Damodar Rupawate & Ors, [2010] 7 SCC 398 ¶ 22, 25; The State of
Uttar Pradesh vs. Lalai Singh Yadav, AIR 1977 SC 202, ¶ 10.
106 Sri Baragur Ramachandrappa & Ors vs State of Karnataka & Ors, (2007) 5 SCC 11, ¶ 95.
107 Nand Kishore Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1986 Pat 98, ¶ 17.
108 Harnam Das v State of UP, AIR 1961 SC 1662, ¶ 11, 12, 13.

Court, the Counsel for the Respondent would like to put in brevity the rationales that proves
sufficient case is made out against the Petitioner in the impugned order:
a. Sec. 153-A of IPC, 1860 is attracted because the mens rea is present in the instant matter as the
words and language used in the book are in terms of an insult, offence and ridicule. It disparaged
the glorious history, status and religion of the Trus Community and led to the excited feeling
of enmity between them and the non-Trus community who supported the work of the
Petitioner.
b. Sec. 153-B of IPC, 1860 is attracted because the publication of derogatory assertions in the
Petitioner’s book concerning the religious & community obligations of Trus Community have
caused feelings of hatred & enmity between them and other non-Trus people who supported
the impugned book, thereby prejudicing the national integration and causing a problem of law
and order in the State.
c. Sec. 292 of IPC, 1860 is attracted in the present case because passages written in the impugned
book are “obscene” as the tone and tenor of the words used in it have caused mental shock to
the readers of the book and induced immoral influence upon them about their pious queen.
Additionally, the Cover page of the book comes within the mischief of Sec. 292 as it excites
impure thoughts of lust in the minds of any rational reader.
d. Sec. 295-A of IPC, 1960 is attracted because the Petitioner had “malicious” and deliberate”
intention to outrage the religious feelings of Trus Community that can derived from the grossly
offensive & provocative words used by the Petitioner in his book to characterize the gods of
the Trus Community.
(¶47.) Therefore, in the light of aforementioned contentions, it is humbly submitted that the
grounds of opinion stated in the impugned order constitute the offences alleged in it, thereby not
empowering the Hon’ble HC to quash the order of forfeiture issued by the Respondent u/s 96 of
the Cr.P.C., 1973 as well.

PRAYER
Wherefore, may it please the Hon’ble High Court, in the light of facts and circumstances of the
case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Respondent prays that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge, rule upon, and determine the following:
1. That the present petitions are not maintainable in the instant case.
2. That the FIRs and the Charge sheet filed against the Petitioner is not liable to be quashed.
3. That the Order of forfeiture passed by the Respondent against the Petitioner is not liable
to be quashed.
AND/OR
Pass any other order it may deem fit in the interest of Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience.
All of which is most respectfully prayed and humbly submitted.
(Signed)
Place:
Date:
Counsel for the Respondent.

Before The Hon'Ble High Court of Tapovast: 10 Rgnul National Moot Court Competition, 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Before The Hon'Ble High Court of Tapovast: 10 Rgnul National Moot Court Competition, 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC – 04R

10TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF TAPOVAST

IN THE MATTER OF:

W.P. No. ____ of 2022 r/w Crl. M. P. No. ____ of 2022

Crl. M. P. No. _____ of 2022

As submitted to the Hon’ble Judges of the Hon’ble High Court of Tapovast

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

S. NO. TABLE OF CONTENTS PG. NO.

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS- 1 | P a g e

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS- 2 | P a g e

S. NO. ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION

4. A.I.R. All India Reporter

10. Const. Constitution

11. Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure

12. Crl. M. P. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

13. CrLJ Criminal Law Journal

14. Del. Delhi

15. Ed. Edition

16. F.R. Fundamental Right

17. Govt. Government

18. H.P. Himachal Pradesh

19. HC High Court

20. Hon’ble Honorable

21. http Hypertext Transfer Protocol

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS- 3 | P a g e

22. I.L.R. Indian Law Reports

23. IPC Indicus Penal Code

24. Ltd. Limited

25. M.P. Madhya Pradesh

26. Mad. Madras

27. MIB Ministry of Information & Broadcasting

28. Ors. Others

29. Pg. Page

30. Pvt. Private

31. r/w Read with

32. Retd. Retired

33. S.C. Supreme Court

34. S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases

35. S.C.R. Supreme Court Reporter

36. Sec. Section

37. U.P. Uttar Pradesh

38. u/s Under section

39. u/ss. Under sections

40. UOI Union of India

41. URL Universal Resource Locator

43. Vol. Volume

44. W.P. Writ Petition

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS- 4 | P a g e

S. NO. CASES PG. NO.

2. Abdul Ali vs State of Kerala, 2015 (1) KLT 676, ¶ 4 21

3. Abdul Rasheed v State of Kerala, 2008 CrLJ 3480, ¶ 9 29

4. Ajay Goswami vs. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 493, ¶ 76 36

8. Aveek Sarkar v State of WB, (2014) 4 SCC 257, ¶ 24 29

9. Baba Khalil Ahmed v State, AIR 1960 All 715, ¶ 27 31

11. Baku Rao Patel v. The State, 1973 RLR 637, ¶ 14 36

15. Bhupal Gosh vs. Arif Ali, AIR 1974 SC 255, ¶ 4 36

16. Biplab Das v State, 2017 Cr LJ 644, ¶ 10 30

17. CBI v. Maninder Singh, 2016 SCC 1 389, ¶17 23

18. Chamba Valley Transport Ltd. vs State of HP, AIR 1953 HP 8, ¶ 13 21

19. Collector of Customs, Madras v. Sampathy C., AIR 1962 SC 316, ¶ 48 34

20. Common Cause vs. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 667, ¶ 38 22

21. CT Prim v State, AIR 1961 Cal 177, ¶ 11 29

W.P. No. of 2022 r/w Crl. M. P. No. of 2022