IN- HOUSE “MOOT PROPOSITION DRAFTING COMPETITION” 2013

Moot proposition - 4

Rohit (Accused) and Sunaina were married to each other on 24-2-2007 at Bhopal according
to Hindu rites and rituals. After a period of one year, some problems arose between the two
and as a result of which Sunaina left her matrimonial home located at Bhopal and went to her
father’s place located at Jabalpur. On 2.5.2008, a petition under section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) was filled by the Accused at Family Court, Bhopal for restitution
of conjugal rights.

While the matter was sub judice in the Family Court, Bhopal, Sunaina lodged an F.I.R.
against the Accused under section 154 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code) at Jabalpur,
alleging that he had voluntarily caused her hurt by a dangerous weapon and had also
threatened that he would put her to death if any complaint was made to the police. F.I.R. was
registered for offences alleged to have been committed by the Accused under sections 323
and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The Accused was then arrested by the police under section 41 of the Code. A weapon was
also seized from the house of the accused by the investigating officer. As the case was
registered under sections 323 and 506 IPC which constituted a bailable offence, the Accused
was given bail from the police station itself under section 436 of the Code.

Finally, after the investigation, a final report was submitted by the Police to a First Class
Judicial Magistrate who was empowered to take cognizance of the offence. The weapon so
seized by the investigating officer was forwarded under section 170 of the Code and the
procedure under the same was also followed.

The Magistrate at Jabalpur took cognizance of the said offence on the basis of the final report
submitted to him by the police. Summons was issued by the Magistrate under section 204 of
the Code directing the Accused to be present in the Court in relation to the F.I.R. lodged
against him. The Magistrate supplied the Accused with copies of police report and other
documents and after consideration and examination of the police report, framed charges
against the Accused.

On 17/9/2009, Rohit filed a petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under section
482 of the Code for quashing the F.I.R. On 18/9/2009, Sunaina filed a petition under Art.

Subjects involved: Criminal Law, Family Law & Constitutional Law Page 1
 IN- HOUSE “MOOT PROPOSITION DRAFTING COMPETITION” 2013

226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (Constitution) challenging the constitutional validity
of section 9 of the HMA on the ground that it violated Art. 14 and Art. 21 of the Constitution.

The Division Bench of the High Court heard both the petitions together and dismissed the
two petitions, through the order dated 20-11-2009. According to the Court, section 9 of the
HMA did not violate Art. 14 and Art. 21of the Constitution.

However, on the basis of the application filed by Sunaina and Rohit under Art. 134A of the
Constitution, both were granted leave to file appeal under Art. 133 and Art. 134 respectively
of the Constitution. Two Cross Appeals were filled by both Sunaina and Rohit under Art. 133
and Art. 134 respectively of the Constitution challenging the decision of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court dated 20-11-2009. Sunaina’s contentions were based on the question as to the
constitutional validity of section 9 of the HMA and Rohit pleaded for the abuse of process
involved in registration of F.I.R. against him.

ARGUE.

Subjects involved: Criminal Law, Family Law & Constitutional Law Page 2