TEAM CODE -

18
LAW CENTRE II, UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

MOOT COURT PROBLEM - 1

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

__________________________________________________________________

MOOLCHAND
(PETITIONER)

V.

BALDEV
(RESPONDENT)

__________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

__________________________________________________________________________
__

Submitted to – Ms Swati Solanki

Submitted by – Jayant Saini
Class roll no. - 202598
Examination roll no. - 20311806624
 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF ABBREVIATION….................................................................................................4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................................................5

● Case laws referred

● Legislation referred
● Lexicons
● Websites referred

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…...................................................................................7

STATEMENT OF FACTS......................................................................................................8

STATEMENT OF ISSUES......................................................................................................10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS..............................................................................................11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I..WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS

COURT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?..................................................................................13
THE APPELLANT HAS THE LOCUS STANDI TO APPROACH THE
HONOURABLE SC
THE MATTER INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AND HENCE
ENTITLED TO BE MAINTAINABLE
II. WHETHER THE INSULT OVER TELEPHONIC CONVERSATION WITNESSED BY A
THIRD-PARTY CONSTITUTE AN OFFENCE UNDER S.3(1) r. & (s) of SCHEDULED
CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989?
15
INTENTIONAL INSULT OF A MEMBER OF SC-ST COMMUNITY BY A NON-
MEMBER
INSULT WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THAT VICTIM BELONGS TO SUCH
 3

COMMUNITY

INSULT MADE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE THIRD PARTY CONSTITUTES AN

OFFENCE IN PUBLIC VIEW

III WHETHER THE SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE

(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 BEING A PENAL STATUTE MUST
BE READ AND INTERPRETED STRICTLY OR THE COURT SHOULD BROADEN
ITS BOUNDARY SO THAT IT CAN PROTECT THE DIGNITY OF SCHEDULED
CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE AND ANY INJUSTICE WOULD BE
PREVENTED……………………………………………………………………………17
PRESENCE OF A PRIMA FACIE CASE
PARAMETERS TAKEN IN ACCOUNT WHEN HIGH COURT ENTERTAIN A
PETITION FOR QUASHING OF CHARGE FRAMED
PRAYER…..................................................................................................................................20
 4

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

¶ Para
¶¶ Paras
AIR All India Reporter
Art. Article
Anr. Another
SC Scheduled Caste
ST Scheduled Tribe
SC/ST(POA) Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe ( Prevention Of Atrocity) Act
Cr. LJ Criminal Law Journal
Adm. Administration
HC High Court
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
Supp. Supplementary
UOI Union Of India
CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
Sec. Section
V. Versus
 5

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES REFERRED

1. Nihal Singh & Ors v. the State Of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26

2. Pawan Kumar v State of Haryana, (2003) 11 SCC 241 (SC).
3. C.C.E v Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 1298 SC 1298.
4. Janshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004)3 SCC 214 (SC).
5. Sadhu Singh v. Pepsu, AIR 1954 SC 271
6. Arunachalam v. P.S.R.SetharatnamAIR 1979 SC 1284.
7. Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat (1991) 4 SCC 406
8. Ganga Kumar srivastava v. State of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC 211.
9. Chunilal Mehta & Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd AIR 1962
SC 1314.
10. Dale & Carrington Investment Ltd. v. P.K. Prathapan (2005) 1 SCC 212.
11. Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra (1952) AIR 991.
12. Sripur Paper Mills v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (1970) AIR 1520.
13. Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169.
14. V.C Shukla v. State (Delhi ADM) AIR 1980 SC1382
15. Bhawana bai v. Ghanshyam (2020)2 SCC 217
16. State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh 1977 4SCC39
17. Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal,2000(1) SCC 722
18. Dinesh Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2014 13 SCC 137
19. Superintendent & Remembrances of legal v. Anil Kumar Bhunia (1979) 4SCC 274
20. Anoop Singh v. State, 2017 SCC del. 8333
21. The State of MP v. Mohanlal soni(2000) 6SCC 338
22. State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy (1977) 2SCC699
23. Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. The state of Gujarat and another, 714 of 2019
24. Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi) AIR2010 SC 1446
25. State of Maharashtra v. Salman Salim Khan and ors. AIR 2004 SC 1189
 6

26. Om wati v. State, through Delhi adm. (2001) 4SCC 333.

27. Swaran Singh & otr v. State through standing council & anr. (2008)8SCC435
28. Y.Vasudeva Rao &anr. V. State of A.P& and.2005 CriLJ 3774
29. Daya Bhatnagar and ors. V. State 109(2004) DLT 915
30. Pradeep Kumar v. State of Haryana and anr. CRP. No.1354 of 2019
31. State of A.P v. Gourishetty mansh and otr. (2010)11 SCC 226
32. E. Tirupem Reddy v. Deputy suptd. Of police, Nandyal 2006 Cr.Lj 1606(AP)

LIST OF STATUES

1. The Constitution of India, 1950.

2. The Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribe(Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

LEXICONS

1. Black Law Dictionary, 6th Edition.

2. Stroud's judicial dictionary of words and phrases, 6th edition volume 3.

JOURNAL & ARTICLE REFERRED

1. International journal of law, Volume 4, Issue -I Jan. 2018

WEBSITES REFERRED

1. SCC Online, http://www.scconline.co.in

2. Manupatra online resources, http://www.manupatra.com
3. Indian case law (ICL) http://www.caselaw.in
4. Indian kanoon http://indiankanoon.org
 7

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

 The counsel for the petitioner, Mool Chand hereby humbly submit to this Hon‘ble
Court’s jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
 The present memorandum sets forth the Facts, Contentions, and Arguments present in
this case.

______________________________________

Article 136. SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL BY THE SUPREME COURT

(1) Notwithstanding Anything In This Chapter, The Supreme Court May, In Its Discretion, Grant Special Leave To
Appeal From Any Judgment, Decree, Determination, Sentence Or Order In Any Cause Or Matter Passed Or Made
By Any Court Or Tribunal In The Territory Of India.
(2) Nothing In Clause (1) Shall Apply To Any Judgment, Determination, Sentence Or Order Passed Or Made By
Any Court Or Tribunal Constituted By Or Under Any Law Relating To The Armed Forces.
 8

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

 Moolchand, petitioner, herein was elected as a ward member of a ward no. 9 Rajpura
town and was elected member of an elected body of the municipality and he belongs to
Schedule Cast and the seat to which he was elected reserved for Scheduled Caste. The
Municipality was chaired by Baldev who belongs to the general category.
 On December 4th, 2019 Baldev sent a message to Mool Chand through WhatsApp,
inviting him for a personal meeting in his chamber at 11 AM for a discussion relating to
cleanliness in ward no. 9. Occupied with work Mool chand read the message at 11:30
AM and immediately called Baldev to inform that he would reach shortly.

COMMISSION OF OFFENCE

 On receiving a call, Baldev started shouting at Mool Chand for getting late. He made
casteist remarks and humiliated him in the presence of a clerk in the chamber. Despite all
humiliation and insult, Mool Chand went to the Municipality to attend the meeting. The
moment Mool chand entered the chamber, Baldev got angry and abused him on the name
of his caste. Baldev shouted at Mool Chand saying "Get lost from my office, otherwise,
I'll make you clean the streets."
 Since Baldev was not listening to Mool Chand, he left the chamber and rushed to the
police station to register an FIR against Baldev.

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

Findings of the Trial Court:

 At the initial stage of the case, the Trial court found that a prima facie case had been
made out against Baldev.
 9

 On February 4th, 2020 the court framed charges under section 3(1)(r) and section 3(1)
(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Findings of the High Court:

 The honourable court quashed the order of framing the charges on April 6, 2020.
 The appeal before the Supreme Court: The victim has now preferred an appeal.
 10

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Issue i. Whether the special leave petition brought before this court is maintainable or
not?

Issue ii. Whether the insult over a telephonic conversation witnessed by a third party attract an
offence under s.3(1)(r) & (s) of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe (prevention of atrocities)
act, 1989?

Issue iii. Whether the Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribe (prevention of atrocities) act, 1989 is
a penal statute must be read and interpreted strictly or the court should broaden its boundary so
that it can protect the dignity scheduled caste and scheduled tribes and any injustice would be
prevented
 11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I.Whether the Special Leave Petition brought before this court maintainable?
 Article 136 is very broad-based & confers discretion on the court to hear "in any cause or
matter", limited only by its discretion. SC has the power to interfere even with findings of
fact if the HC, in arriving at those findings, has acted "perversely" or otherwise
improperly. SC can allow an appeal under Article 136 if it involves a substantial question
of law, an issue of public importance, or where the rights of an individual have been
infringed.
 It is humbly submitted before this Hon‘ble Court that grave injustice has been done and
the appeal is maintainable.

II. Whether the insult over a telephonic conversation witnessed by a third party attracts
an offence under s. 3(1) (r) & (s) of Scheduled caste & scheduled tribe (prevention of
atrocities) act, 1989?
 It is humbly submitted before the hon'ble court that insult over a telephonic call in the
presence of a third party attracts an offence under S. 3(1) (r )& (s) of SC-ST Act. For an
offence to be committed under the above-mentioned section, two criteria must be fulfilled
I.e intentional humiliation of a member of the SC/ST community and that insult should be
made in any place within public view. In our case the victim belongs to the SC
community which was in the knowledge of the respondent, casteist remarks, and
humiliation was made in the presence of a clerk i.e. a third party and such remarks were
made twice which shows the intention of the respondent hence offence made out.

III. Whether the Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribe (prevention of atrocities) act, 1989 is a
penal statute that must be read and interpreted strictly or the court should broaden its
boundary so that it can protect the dignity of scheduled caste and scheduled tribes and
any injustice would be prevented?

 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that every statute should interpret
in such a way that the main objective or the main essence of the act should be preserved as
the main objective of the Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribe (prevention of atrocities) act,
1989 is to “prevent the commission of the offence of atrocities against the members of the
Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribes” and for that, it is necessary to give wider
implications to the provisions of this act.
 12

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COURT

IS MAINTAINABLE

 It is humbly submitted before this Hon‘ble Court that the present Special Leave Petition
(hereinafter referred to as 'SLP') filed by Mool Chand (hereinafter referred to as
'appellant') is maintainable in the Supreme Court [hereinafter as SC] under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India.

THE APPELLANT HAS THE LOCUS STANDI TO APPROACH THE

HONOURABLE SC

 Article 136 is very broad-based & confers discretion on the court to hear in any cause or
matter, limited only by its discretion. Article 136 is couched in the widest phraseology.1
The jurisdiction conferred under article 136 on the SC is corrective & not a restrictive
one.2 Article 136 is the residuary power of SC to do justice where the court is satisfied
that there is injustice3. This court would never do injustice nor allow injustice being
perpetrated for the sake of upholding technicalities4. Criminal appeals may be brought to
the SC under article 136 when these are not covered by Article 1345.
 In Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Setharatnam6, under Article 136 it was held: ―this court has
undoubted power to interfere even with findings of fact, making no distinction between
judgments of acquittal or conviction, if the HC, in arriving at those findings, has acted
―perversely or otherwise improperly. SC has held that under article 136 the Supreme
Court has wide power to interfere and correct the judgment and order passed by any court
or tribunal in India7. In Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar8 SC held that
powers of the SC in an appeal under Article 136 are not restricted by the appellate
provisions

1
Nihal Singh & Ors v. State Of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26
2
Pawan Kumar v State of Haryana, (2003) 11 SCC 241 (SC)
3
C.C.E v Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 1298 SC 1298
4
Janshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004)3 SCC 214 (SC).
5
Sadhu Singh v. Pepsu, AIR 1954 SC 271
6
AIR 1979 SC 1284
7
Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat (1991) 4 SCC 406
8
(2005) 6 SCC 211
 13

contained in the CrPC or any other statute. The SC under article 136 of the Constitution
following principles emerge: (i) It is open to this Court to interfere with the findings of
fact given by the HC if the HC has acted perversely or otherwise improperly; (ii) It is
open to this Court to invoke the power under Article 136 only in very exceptional
circumstances as and when a question of law of general public importance arises or a
decision shocks the conscience of the Court; (iii) When the evidence adduced by the
prosecution fell short of the test of reliability & acceptability and as such it is highly
unsafe to act upon it; (iv) Where the appreciation of evidence and finding is vitiated by
any error of law of procedure or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors
of record & misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of the HC are
manifestly perverse & unsupportable from the evidence on record.
 In the present case, the appellant has locus standi to approach the Hon‘ble SC.

THE MATTER INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AND HENCE

ENTITLED TO BE MAINTAINABLE

 SC in Chunilal Mehta & Sons case9 held-The proper test for determining whether a
question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of
general public importance or whether it directly & substantially affects the rights of the
parties & if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled
by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty
or calls for discussion of alternative views. Where findings are entered without
considering relevant materials and without following proper legal procedure, the
interference of the SC is called for10. The SC is not precluded from going into the
question of facts under article 136 if it considers it necessary to do so11. It is, plain that
when the Supreme Court concludes that a person has been dealt with arbitrarily or that a
court or tribunal has not given a fair deal to a litigant, then no technical hurdles of any
kind like the finality of the finding of facts, or otherwise can stand in the way of the
exercise of this power12. When a question of law of general public importance arises, or a
decision shocks the conscience of the court,

9
Chunilal Mehta & Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd AIR 1962 SC 1314
10
Dale & Carrington Investment Ltd. v. P.K. Prathapan (2005) 1 SCC 212
11
Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra (1952) AIR 991
12
Sripur Paper Mills v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (1970) AIR 1520
 14

its jurisdiction can always be invoked13. The present facts in the issue satisfy all of the
above-mentioned criteria. Assuming that the case doesn‘t involve a 'substantial‘ question
of law, SC in the exercise of its power conferred under article 136 can entertain the
present appeal. Article 136 uses the wording in any cause or matter14. This gives the
widest power to this court to deal with any cause or matter, even if it involves the
question of fact.

13
C.C.E v Standard Motor Products, (1989) AIR 1298
14
Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169
 15

II. WHETHER THE INSULT OVER TELEPHONIC CONVERSATION WITNESSED

BY A THIRD PARTY ATTRACT AN OFFENCE UNDER S.3(1)(r) & (s) OF
SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
ACT, 1989?

 It is humbly submitted before the hon'ble court that offence under s. 3(1) (r.) &(s) of
Prevention of Atrocities Act is committed here by fulfilling all the ingredients required to
commit an offence under this provision.
 Section 3. (1) r. & s. If scheduled caste and scheduled tribe read as :
Punishment for offences of atrocities: whoever, not being a member of a scheduled caste and
tribe-
(r ) intentionally insults or intimidate with intent to humiliate a member of a scheduled caste or a
scheduled tribe in any place within public view;
(s) abused any member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe by caste name in any place
within public view;
 The law referred to the meaning of the words "public" & " view" as explained in Black's
law dictionary, Stroud's judicial dictionary of words and phrases and observed that the
expression "public view" doesn't necessarily mean that a large number of persons should
be present to constitute public; and that even when one or two members of the public hear
and view the offending words being used, the offense would be made out, provided other
ingredients of the section are satisfied.
 In Daya Bhatnagar and ors. V. State15 the ingredients for the offence was discussed as,
(a) intentional insult or intimidation by a person, not a member of the SC ST community.
(b) insult must be with an intent to humiliate and had prior knowledge/ awareness of the
victim's community
(c ) the incident must occur in any place within the public view.

15
109(2004)DLT 915
 16

Intentional insult of a person by a person, not a member if SC-ST community

 In our case Intention to humiliate16 is made out from the fact that the respondent was
humiliated twice. when the appellant called to inform his late arrival, the respondent
made casteist remarks and humiliated him in the presence of a clerk i.e. a third party and
despite all when the appellant reached the office, the respondent made insulting remarks
and abused him again fulfilling one of the key ingredients of the offence.

Insult with the knowledge of that victim's belong to such a community

 In our case the appellant was elected to the post of ward member and was reserved for
scheduled caste. This shows that the community 17 of the appellant was already known to
the respondent due to association, hence other ingredients of the offence made out.

The incident must occur in any place within the public view

 In the recent judgment in Pradeep Kumar v. State if haryana18, facts similar to the one
in the hand it can be construed to constitute an offence u/s 3(1) (r ) & (s) of SC-ST (POR)
Act, if the alleged conversation over the phone was witnessed by any third party, it can be
considered under public view.
 In the present case, casteist remarks over the phone were witnessed by a third party
hence, satisfies the criteria of an offence under above- mentioned section.
 In Y. Vasudeva Rao19 it was discussed that the phrase "in a place within public view"
may be taken as a place where ordinarily public visit for some purpose, it can be govt.
Office, market, a place of public entertainment where the people are expected to go and
are invited is a place within the public view.
 Thus, the Allahabad HC was incorrect in not considering the casteist aspersions on phone as
offence, giving reasoning the lack of public view and didn't consider the presence of other
ingredients of offence. Insult made in the name of caste is a violation of A.21 of the
Constitution of India. No people or community should be treated as being inferior and
nobody's

16
supra 15
17
supra 15
18
CPR N. 1354 of 2019
19
2005 CriLJ 37
 17

feelings should be hurt20. Whether the words were uttered in public view or not is a question of
fact that will have to be decided during the trial hence, the trial should be allowed21 keeping in
mind the reason for this civil right act in the first place is backed by the provisions of the
Constitution of India and the narrow interpretation of the provisions of aforementioned act defeats
the spirit of the Constitution of India.

III .Whether the Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribe (prevention of atrocities) act, 1989 is a
penal statute that must be read and interpreted strictly or the court should broaden its
boundary so that it can protect the dignity of scheduled caste and scheduled tribes and any
injustice would be prevented?

 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that every statute should interpret
in such a way that the main objective or the main essence of the act should be preserved as
the main objective of the Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribe (prevention of atrocities) act,
1989 is to “prevent the commission of the offence of atrocities against the members of the
Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribes” and for that, it is necessary to give wider
implications to the provisions of this act.

 It is necessary to understand the mind and intent of the legislature before interpreting any
statute as in the case of the Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribe (prevention of atrocities)
act, 1989 the intention of Parliament must have been to protect the rights and dignity of the
member of marginalized community i.e., Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribe.

 The intention of the framers is clearly visible in Article 46 of the Constitution of India, as
per this article "The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic
interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of
exploitation."

_________________________________________
 20
Swaran Singh & otr. V. State, (2008)8SCC435
 21
E.Tirupem Reddy v. deputy suptd. Of police, Nandyal 2006 cr. LJ 1606(AP)
 22
Sec. 227 of CrPC
 23
AIR 1980 SC1382
 18

Presence of a prima facie case:

In Bhawana bai v. Ghanshyam24 it was held that at the time of framing of the charges only
prima facie cases are to be seen, whether the case is beyond a reasonable doubt is not to be
seen at this stage which was ironically done in the present case by Allahabad High Court by
overlooking prima facie case at the stage of framing of charges. In 1977's Ramesh Singh
case25 court said that the presumption of guilt of the accused which is mentioned in

S.228 is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France, where
the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved, but it is only to decide
a prima facie whether the court should proceed with the trial or not.
 On a plain reading of A.227 it is clear that for discharging an accused, the court has to
give reasons but for framing of charges u/s. 228, the judge is not required to record
detailed reasons26 as to why such a charge is framed27.
 At this stage the truth, veracity and the effect of the evidence which the prosecution
proposed to adduce are not meticulously judged28 nor is any weight to be attached to the
probable defence of the accused, thus court in Anoop Singh case29 held that a "mini-
trial" is not to be conducted.
 In the State of M.P v. Mohanlal Soni 30, the apex court has already clarified the judicial
view that at the stage of framing if charges the court has to prima facie consider whether
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, only the court has to see
whether the material brought on record could reasonably connect the accused with a trial,
nothing more is required to be inquired into 31. A strong suspicion suffices. However, a
strong suspicion must be founded on some material32 which in our case was the
occurrence of the offence in presence of a witness and meeting other criteria of the
offence.
 Thus, the trial court was right to find out that there is a basis for 'presuming' that the
accused has committed an offence and not to conclude that it is not likely to lead to a
conviction33.
________________________
24
(2020)2 SCC 217
25
19774SCC39
26
Kanti Bhadra shah v. State id west Bengal , 2000(1)SCC722
27
Dinesh Tiwari v. State of U.P 2014 13 SCC137
28
supretendent & remembrances of legal v Anil kr. bhunjal(1979)4SCC 274
29
2017 SCC del.8333
 19
30
(2000) 6 SCC 338
31
State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy(1977) 2SCC699
32
Dipakbhai jagdishchandra patel v. The state of Gujarat and anr., 714 of 2019
33
chitresh kr. Chopra v. State (govt. Of NCTof Delhi ) AIR 2010 SC 1446
Parameters taken into account when High court entertain a petition for quashing of
framing of charges:

 In the State of Maharashtra v. Salman Salim Khan 34, apex court opined that though it
is open to a High Court entertaining a petition under sec. 482 of the code to quash charges
framed by the trial court, the same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or
sufficiency of the evidence. In a case praying for quashing of the charge, the principle to
be adopted by the High Court should be that if the entire evidence produced by the
prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an offence or not. The truthfulness,
sufficiency, and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of charge
can be done only at the stage of the trial.
 The Allahabad HC diverged from this principle given by the supreme court and failed to
acknowledge the prima facie case.
 The reasoning behind such a principle is to stop the unscrupulous litigation which aims to
protect the trial under the cloak of technicalities of law 35. The quashing of charges is an
exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly
satisfied, the court should be more inclined to permit the continuation of prosecution
rather than it's quashing at the initial stage 36. Though the court in Gaourishetty Case37
said that the power under S.482 of CrPC is wide but has to be exercised with great care
and caution.

 Hence, it is clear from the cited authority that at the time of framing of charge only a
prima facie case has to be seen and evidence is not appreciated at the stage of framing the
charge. The ground for the presumption of an offence under section 3(1)r. & s. SC/ST
Act cannot be ignored under the cloak of technicalities of law.

_________________________________________
 20
34
AIR 2004 SC 1189
35
Omwati v. State, Delhi adm. (2001)4SCC333
36
2017 SCC del.8333
37
(2010) 11 SCC 226
21
22
 23

PRAYER

Therefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly
submitted that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to hold, adjudge, and find that:

1. Grant the appeal filed by the Appellant.

2. Hold that offences under section 3(1) (r) & (s) have been committed.
3. The scheduled caste and scheduled tribe (prevention of atrocities) act, 1989 must be read
and interpreted strictly in broad way so that it can protect the dignity of the scheduled caste
and scheduled tribe and any injustice would be prevented

AND/ OR

Pass any other order or any other relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of
Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience.

All of which is humbly prayed.

PLACE : S/D
DATE: (COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT )