TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents..............................................................................2
Index of Authorities...........................................................................3
List of Abbreviations..........................................................................4
Statement of Jurisdiction.....................................................................6
Synopsis of Facts................................................................................7
Statement of Issues..............................................................................8
Summary of Arguments......................................................................9
Arguments
Advanced............................................................................12
a) Whether The Criminal Procedure ( Identification ) Act 2022 Is Devoid Of Substantive
Due Process And Ultra Vires To The Constitution?
b) Whether The Rights Of The Accused Person Is Infringed Under This Act?
c) Whether The Petitioner Can Claim Maintenance For The Malicious Prosecution Went
Under?

Prayer................................................................................................23
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES REFERRED

Beni Madhava And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 September, 1981 (no date).
Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1442604/ (Accessed: 21 January 2023).

Deoman Shamji Patil vs The State on 11 September, 1958 (no date). Available at:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/290901/ (Accessed: 20 January 2023).

Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018 (no date).

Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127517806/ (Accessed: 17 January
2023).

Madhu Limaye vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate, ... on 28 October, 1970 (no date).

Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/496236/ (Accessed: 20 January 2023).

M. P. Sharma And Others vs Satish Chandra, District ... on 15 March, 1954 (no
date). Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1306519/ (Accessed: 21 January
2023).

Mr. S. Nambi Narayanan vs State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2011 (no date). Available
at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/49204394/ (Accessed: 21 January 2023).

Sc No.:-28020/2016 State vs . Pradeep & Ors Page No.1/43 on 29 November, 2018

(no date). Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/67904443/ (Accessed: 19
January 2023).

Selvi & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Anr on 5 May, 2010 (no date). Available at:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/338008/ (Accessed: 20 January 2023).

Shri D.K. Basu,Ashok K. Johri vs State Of West Bengal,State Of U.P on 18

December, 1996 (no date). Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/501198/
(Accessed: 20 January 2023).

The State Of Bombay vs Kathi Kalu Oghad And Others on 4 August, 1961 (no date
a). Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1626264/ (Accessed: 21 January
2023).

The State Of Bombay vs Kathi Kalu Oghad And Others on 4 August, 1961 (no date
b). Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1626264/ (Accessed: 21 January
2023).

Veerendra vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 May, 2022 (no date). Available at:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/31029978/ (Accessed: 19 January 2023).

STATUES REFERRED
1) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
2) Constitution of India, 1950
3) Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022
4) Identification of Prisioners Act, 1920

WEBSITES REFERRED

1) Https//Indianlegalservices.com

2) https//Indiankanoon.org

3) www.casemine.com

4) https://blog.ipleaders.in
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1.AIR -ALL INDIA REPORTER
 
2.Annex-. ANNEXURE
 
3.Anr.- ANOTHER

4.Art.- ARTICLE

5. Cl. -CLAUSE

6.Cr. -CRIMINAL

7. Cr.P.C - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The counsel humbly submits this memorandum of petitioner before the Honorable High Court of
Estancia. The writ petition invokes Article 226 1 of the Constitution of India under the writs of
Mandamus and Prohibition. It sets forth the facts and laws on which the claims are based.

1
226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs: (1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court
shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or
authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them,
for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. (2) The power conferred by
clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any
High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part,
arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence
of such person is not within those territories. (3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of
injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause ( 1 ),
without: (a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim
order; and (b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the
vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been
made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from
the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is
later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on
which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of
that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated (4) The power conferred on a High
Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme court by clause ( 2 ) of Article
32
 SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

1. Mrs. Bhamini Fathima is a full-time working wife who resides at “Sunshine Apartments”,
along with her husband Mr. Chandra who takes care of the house and their daughter. Due
to Mr.Chandra’s recent failure as an entrepreneur, Mrs. Bhamini Fathima takes it upon
herself to start full-time work to bring financial stability to their lives. Mrs. Bhamini
Fathima works with She-Taxi company as a driver. In the due course of time, Mrs.
Bhamini Fathima has gained a lot of attention in the histogram platform (social media)
where she has around 50k followers. She has molded herself into a woman influencer as a
lady taxi driver, who inspires many young girls and women of the present generation.
2. On 18/10/2022, At 10:00am she was assigned to pick up Mr. Lucky Singh from the
airport, who by surprise turns out to be one of the followers of Mrs. Bhamini’s histogram
social media account. Mr. Lucky Singh keeps chatting continuously throughout the trip
which added to Bhamini’s dismay. To deviate from the topic, Bhamini enquired about the
drop point as she has taken the day off to celebrate her 1st year wedding anniversary. Mr.
Lucky Singh conveyed his wishes and stated that he has recently bought an apartment in
the neighborhood, which coincidentally happened to be one of the apartments in
Bhamini’s gated community.
3. As Bhamini signs off the work after the last assignment. She immediately updated a post
in histogram social media account “After a long day at work, heading home to celebrate
with the love of my life on our first wedding anniversary at our little nest.“which has
spread among her followers. On 18/10/2022, at 4:00pm celebration started at Bhamini’s
apartment. Mr.Lucky Singh visited her apartment without any prior invite. Bhamini, was
highly annoyed at Lucky's eagerness to barge into her home when all she wants is to
celebrate her anniversary with her husband and daughter. Mr.Lucky Singh walks in just
before the celebration and to everyone’s surprise he cooked delicious food for Bhamini’s
Family.
4. On 18/10/2022, around 6:00 pm Mr. Lucky asked Bhamini to help with carrying out an
errand for him. Mrs. Bhamini agreed to help and informed Mr. Lucky that she will drop
 him at the airport after offering her evening prayers. Meanwhile Mr.Lucky Singh ends up
killing Mr. Chandra and his daughter cold-bloodedly while Mrs.Bhamini was offering her
prayers. He hides their body in a giant body bag and hides it in the trunk of Bhamini’s
car.
5. On 18/10/2022, at 6:30pm, both head to the airport to drop Lucky off. Bhamini comes
back to find out that Chandra and her daughter are nowhere to be seen. She files a
missing person report, and soon The police found Chandra’s body in Bhamini’s car trunk
and suspected and arrested her. Bhamini begs the investigation officers about her
innocence and resists giving measurements. During investigation the police suspected
and arrested Mr. Lucky Singh. The trial is pending before the Magistrate Court.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Bhamani approached the High Court to challenge the Criminal
Procedure( Identification ) Act 2022 and seek Judicial Review of Sections 2(1)(a) (iii),
2(1) (b), 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Act. The Petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of
Mandamus or any other appropriate writ , direction or order declaring the aforesaid
provisions of the Act as Unconstitutional and void . The Petitioner has prayed to declare
the aforesaid provisions of the Act as Unconstitutional and void. The petition has been
listed for hearing on 27.1.2023.
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ( IDENTIFICATION )

ACT 2022 IS DEVOID OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS AND
ULTRA VIRES TO THE CONSTITUTION?

2. WHETHER THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED PERSON IS

INFRINGED UNDER THIS ACT?

3. WHETHER THE PETITIONER CAN CLAIM COMPENSATION

FOR THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION WENT UNDER?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 Is Devoid Of

Substantive Due Process And Ultra Vires To The Constitution?
a) The counsel humbly submits that the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 is
devoid of substantive due process and ultra vires to the Constitution of India, 1950. In the
case the petitioner went through wrongful confinement under Section 341 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1862 which is based on the falsus in onum, falsus in omnibus
where in the first trial of the case itself it has been proven.
2. Whether The Rights Of The Accused Person Is Infringed Under This Act?
a) The Counsel humbly submits that the rights of the accused person are infringed under
Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022. It also further violates the guidelines given
under the (Shri D.K. Basu,Ashok K. Johri vs State Of West Bengal,State Of U.P on 18
December, 1996, no date) as stated. Further the medical examination made by the
trained medical practitioner. Section 53 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
basically deals with the medical practitioner. Examination of accused by a medical
practitioner at the request of police officer.
3. Whether The Petitioner Can Claim Compensation For The Malicious Prosecution Went
Under?
a) The counsel humbly submits that the petitioner can claim the compensation for
the malicious prosecution went under. Through as per the facts of the case the
police officer has made the false investigation and this leads to the violation of the
right against self incrimination. Article 20(3) basically deals with the right against
self-incrimination. So the investigation officers must be punished under Section
167 of the Indian Penal Code, 1862. So the woman’s right also also been violated
under the Article 20(3) of Constitution. Based on Mr. S. Nambi Narayanan vs
State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2011, therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P2
is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for
reconsideration and for issuing formal orders, within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, in the light of what has
been stated above. The course of action to be taken in the matter is left open to
be decided by the Government. Suffice it to say that it shall not be namesake,
making administration of justice a mockery.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 Is Devoid Of

Substantive Due Process And Ultra Vires To The Constitution?
b) The counsel humbly submits that the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 is
devoid of substantive due process and ultra vires to the Constitution of India, 1950. As
per the facts of the case the Petitioner Mrs. Bhamini Fathima has been subjected to false
arrest and she has been subjected to harassment by the investigating officers. Her data of
measurement has been violated by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB).
c) In (Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018, no date) the
Supreme Court has laid down a four-fold test of doctrine of proportionality and the new
Act must pass the same. So these following Sections 2(1)(a) (iii), 2(1) (b), 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8
of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 the following sections are
i) Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022
1) The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 is framed as per the
guidelines of the Section 53 and Section 53A of the Criminal Procedure
Code 1975 and Section 53 basically deals with the Examination of
accused by a medical practitioner at the request of a police officer.
Examination of accused by a medical practitioner at the request of a
police officer.
(a) (1) When a person is arrested on a charge of committing an
offense of such a nature and alleged to have been committed
under such circumstances that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that an examination of his person will afford evidence
as to the commission of an offense, it shall be lawful for a
registered medical practitioner, acting at the request of a police
officer not below the rank of sub- inspector,
(b) and for any person acting in good faith in his aid and under his
direction, to make such an examination of the person arrested as
 is reasonably necessary in order to ascertain the facts which may
afford such evidence, and to use such force as is reasonably for
that purpose.
(c) (2) Whenever the person of a female is to be examined under
this section, the examination shall be made only by, or under the
supervision of, a female registered medical practitioner.
Explanation.- In this section and in section 54," registered
medical practitioner" means a medical practitioner who
possesses any recognized medical qualification as defined in
clause (h) of section 2 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
(102 of 1956 ) and whose name has been entered in a State
Medical Register.
2) In the case of (Veerendra vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 May, 2022,
no date) the Supreme Court held that Thus, taking into account the fact
that in the case on hand a hapless 8 year old girl child, who is none
other than the daughter of appellant’s cousin sister raped and murdered
and that too, in an extremely brutal manner revealed from the evidence
on record, we are of the considered view that course adopted in the
decision in Swamy Shraddananda’s case (supra) and reiterated in
Sriharan’s case (supra)has to be adopted in this case. In other words,
even while commuting capital punishment, the appellant has to be
awarded life imprisonment without application of the provisions of
premature release/remission for a substantial length of period. On such
consideration we are of the view that it would be just and proper to
award punishment of imprisonment for life to the appellant for the
offense punishable under Section 302 IPC, by providing for an actual
imprisonment for a period of 30 (thirty) years without application of the
provisions of premature release/remission.
d) With respect to Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code, 1862 the wrongful confinement
has been conducted in the police investigation. Section 340 basically deals with the
 wrongful confinement which is the whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a
manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits,
is said "wrongfully to confine" that person.
e) In the case of (Sc No.:-28020/2016 State vs . Pradeep & Ors Page No.1/43 on 29
November, 2018, no date)the Apex Court held that in the light of above discussion, the
prosecution has been able to establish its case against all the accused persons beyond
reasonable doubt, therefore, all the accused persons namely Praveen, Sunny and Shiva
are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323/342/367/34 IPC. Accused
Shiva and accused Praveen are also convicted under Section 506/34 IPC. Accused
Sunny is also convicted under Section 174-A IPC and accused Shiva is also convicted
under Section 27 Arms Act. Prosecution has not been able to establish the Charge
under Section 364-A IPC against all the accused persons. SC no.:-28020/2016 State
Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.42/43 Proceedings qua accused Pradeep have already
abated vide order dated 30.05.2014 as he had expired during trial.
Executive Magistrate
a) The Executive Magistrate as mentioned in the Section 20 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 following powers are
i) Power of Maintaining Peace and Looking into Impending Threats to
Law and Order: Every riot or an act of violence has the potential to leave
an indelible mark in the minds of the affected. It would have a further
cascading effect by fuelling another course of violence and animosity.
Section 107 is effectively concerned with ensuring security in order to
maintain peace under all circumstances and for this purpose, there has
been a sense of urgency attached to this particular section. Due to that very
virtue and characteristic of this section, it comes within the jurisdiction of
Executive Magistrates. This section and the powers described within,
purports to ensure preventive justice not allowing any potential threats to
public tranquillity, to grow and bloom into something more dangerous
than it already might be. Proceedings can be initiated under S.107 by the
Executive Magistrates either in cases where the breach of peace is within
his jurisdiction or even when it is outside his jurisdiction but when there is
reasonable apprehension that such a breach might happen.
1) In the case of (Madhu Limaye vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate, ... on
28 October, 1970, no date) In this connection, it was urged by Mr.
Garg that, if S. 117(3) is interpreted as permitting a Magistrate
to direct furnishing of bonds for keeping the peace and to order
detention in default without any evidence being obtained in the
course of the inquiry, the Magistrate may keep on adjourning the
hearing of the inquiry under s. 117(1) and thus, keep the person
in detention for long periods without giving him the opportunity
of showing that there is no justification for orders being made
against him. In my opinion, the validity of a provision of this
nature is not to be judged from the likelihood of the abuse of the
power by the Magistrate. If the Magistrate. rafter making orders
under s. 117(3), unnecessarily postpones the inquiry, he would,
in my opinion, be not only abusing his powers, but will be
acting contrary to the mandate of the law contained in s. 117(1)
itself which, as I have indicated above, requires that the
Magistrate must proceed to enquire into the truth of the
information without unnecessary delay. In cases where the
power is abused and the hearing is unnecessarily delayed, the
proceedings would be liable to be quashed and the person set at
liberty on the ground that the Magistrate has not complied with
the requirements of s. 1 17 (1 ). On the other hand, if the
Magistrate does comply with s. 117 ( 1 ) by continuing the
proceedings of inquiry expeditiously and without any delay, I do
not think it can beaid that the detention of the person, against
whom the proceeding are being taken, is not a reasonable
restriction on his personal liberties when the Magistrate has
already found that immediate, measures are necessary for
prevention of breach of the peace and the person concerned has
 defaulted in furnishing bonds to keep the peace during the
pendency of the inquiry.

CONCLUSION
f) In the overall conclusion as per the first issue of the case the petitioner went through
wrongful confinement under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1862 which is
based on the falsus in onum, falsus in omnibus where in the first trial of the case itself
it has been proven.
 2. Whether The Rights Of The Accused Person Is Infringed Under This Act?
b) The Counsel humbly submits that the rights of the accused person are infringed under
Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022. It also further violates the guidelines given
under the (Shri D.K. Basu,Ashok K. Johri vs State Of West Bengal,State Of U.P on 18
December, 1996, no date) as stated. Further the medical examination made by the
trained medical practitioner. Section 53 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
basically deals with the medical practitioner. Examination of accused by medical
practitioner at the request of police officer.
i) (1) When a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of such a
nature and alleged to have been committed under such circumstances that there
are reasonable grounds for believing that an examination of his person will
afford evidence as to the commission of an offence, it shall be lawful for a
registered medical practitioner, acting at the request of a police officer not
below the rank of sub- inspector,
and for any person acting in good faith in his aid and under his direction, to
make such an examination of the person arrested as is reasonably necessary in
order to ascertain the facts which may afford such evidence, and to use such
force as is reasonably for that purpose.
ii) (2) Whenever the person of a female is to be examined under this section, the
examination shall be made only by, or under the supervision of, a female
registered medical practitioner. Explanation.- In this section and in section 54,"
registered medical practitioner" means a medical practitioner who possesses
any recognized medical qualification as defined in clause (h) of section 2 of
the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956 ) and whose name has
been entered in a State Medical Register.
c) In the case of (Deoman Shamji Patil vs The State on 11 September, 1958, no date) he
is not expected to test and satisfy himself as to the technical propriety of the order
which he is called upon to enforce. For instance, in this case he could not be expected
to apprehend a fine distinction between an authorisation contemplated by Section 31,
Sub-section (1), Clause (b), and an authorisation under Section 31, Sub-section (2).
He could not be blamed if he did not see a distinction between the scope and extent of
Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) of Section 31....."
d) It is clear that the learned Judge who decided that case did not lay down any general
proposition to the effect that teh right of private defence cannot be exercised against
public servants who carry out the orders of their superiors, however manifestly illegal
the orders may be. It was because the order which the Sub-Inspector of Police was
carrying out in that case was apparently lawful, but was found to be unlawful on
account of technical defect, that the learned Judges held that the accused was deprived
of the right of private defence by paragraph 1 of Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code.
In the present case, the order of the head constable, if it is construed as an order
authorising the police constables to use force against the accused, was wholly beyond
the powers of the head constable, and the accused had the right of defending himself
against the force sought to be illegally exercised against his person in pursuance of
that order. The result is that the accused is not guilty either under Section 353 or under
Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly we make the rule absolute, set
aside the order of conviction and sentence, and acquit the accused. The fine, if paid,
should be refunded. The bail bond is cancelled.
e) In the case of (Selvi & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Anr on 5 May, 2010, no date) the
Court has stated the involuntary administration of narco analysis is cruel, degrading and
inhuman. The evidence collected by the narco analysis test is inadmissible if done
without the consent of the accused. The court also emphasized the limitation of the
evidence that is collected with the above-mentioned techniques. The court interpreted
Section 20(3) of the constitution which speaks about self-incrimination. The Court held
that the collection of evidence by means of medical examination and any other
techniques such as DNA profiling, Brain Mapping, Polygraph test should be limited to
 the extent of incriminating the accused. Furthermore, the right to privacy of the accused
should not be infringed.

CONCLUSION

f) So the counsel humbly concludes that as per the facts of the case Section 5 of the
Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 has been ultra vires to the Section 53 of the
Criminal Procedure Code 1973. The medical examination is to be done based on the
guidelines issued by the D.K.Basu Case which is not violative as per Article 20 and 21 of
the Constitution.

3. Whether The Petitioner Can Claim Compensation For The Malicious Prosecution
Went Under?
 b) The counsel humbly submits that the petitioner can claim the compensation for
the malicious prosecution went under. Through as per the facts of the case the
police officer has made the false investigation and this leads to the violation of the
right against self incrimination. Article 20(3) basically deals with the right against
self-incrimination.
SELF INCRIMINATION
c) The following ingredients under Article 20 (3) are
d) Person accused of an offence
i) This privilege is only available to a person accused of an offence i.e.
“person against whom a formal accusation relating to the commission of
an offence has been levelled, which may result in prosecution”. In India, a
formal accusation can be made by lodging of an F.I.R. or a formal
complaint against a person accusing him of committing a crime, it is not
necessary that the trial or enquiry should have commenced before a court.
Article 20(3) operates only on the making of such formal accusation. It is
imperative to note that, “a person cannot claim the protection if at the time
he made the statement, he was not an accused but becomes an accused
thereafter.” Article 20 (3) does not apply to departmental inquiries into
allegations against a government servant since there is no accusation of
any offence.
ii) In the case of (M. P. Sharma And Others vs Satish Chandra, District ... on
15 March, 1954, no date)
e) Compulsion to be a witness
i) The application of the narco-analysis test as a technique for investigation
raises the issue of encroachment of human rights. In (The State Of Bombay
vs Kathi Kalu Oghad And Others on 4 August, 1961, no date a)the court
held that it must be shown that the person was compelled to make a
statement which was likely to incriminate him. Compulsion is duress: it
should be a physical objective act and not a state of mind like beating,
threatening, imprisonment of the wife, parent or child of a person.
 Art.20(3) does not apply if a person makes a confession without any
inducement or threat.
f) Compulsion in giving evidence against himself
i) An accused can be compelled to submit to investigation by giving thumb
impressions or specimens for writings or exposing body for the purpose of
identification. In (The State Of Bombay vs Kathi Kalu Oghad And Others
on 4 August, 1961, no date b) it was held that it must be necessarily shown
that the witness was compelled to make a statement likely to incriminate
him. Compulsion is an essential ingredient but if a person makes a
confession without any inducement, threat or promise Article 20(3) does
not apply. The accused may waive his right against self-incrimination by
voluntarily making an oral statement or producing documentary evidence,
incriminatory in nature.
g) Malicious Prosecution
i) Section 167 of Indian Penal Code, 1862 basically deals with the public
servant with intent to cause damage. It states whoever, being a public
servant, and being, as such public servant, charged with the preparation or
translation of any document, frames or translates that document in a
manner which he knows or believes to be incorrect, intending thereby to
cause or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause injury to any
person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
ii) In the case of (Beni Madhava And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 22
September, 1981, no date) the Apex Court held that Shri R.P. Goel, the
learned Counsel for the petitioners, has, however, submitted that after the
passing of the order dated June 10, 1981 by Additional Sessions Judge No.
1, Dholpur, dismissing the bail application of the accused-petitioners,
certain further developments have taken place and that the
accused-petitioners may be permitted to move a fresh bail application
before the Sessions Judge in the light of the said developments. It is made
clear that this order rejecting this bail application will not stand in the way
 of the accused-petitioners moving a fresh bail application before the
Sessions Judge in the light of the developments which have taken place
after the passing of the order, dated June 10, 1981 by the Additional
Sessions Judge. ' 24, In the result, both the bail applications were
dismissed.
CONCLUSION
h) Based on the facts the counsel concludes that the malicious prosecution has been
going under throughout the investigation So the investigation officers must be
punished under Section 167 of the Indian Penal Code, 1862. So the woman’s right
also also been violated under the Article 20(3) of Constitution. Based on Mr. S.
Nambi Narayanan vs State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2011, therefore, the writ
petition is allowed. Ext.P2 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the 1st
respondent for reconsideration and for issuing formal orders, within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, in the
light of what has been stated above. The course of action to be taken in the
matter is left open to be decided by the Government. Suffice it to say that it
shall not be namesake, making administration of justice a mockery.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in the lights of the facts used, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble High court may be pleased to
adjudge and requested for

● The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 Is Devoid Of Substantive Due

Process And Ultra Vires To The Constitution.
● The Rights Of The Accused Person Is Infringed Under This Act
● The Petitioner Can Claim Compensation For The Malicious Prosecution Went
Under

The court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which this Hon'ble High Court may deem
fit in the light of justice, equity and good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly prayed

Counsel for the plaintiff.