Moot Memorial

ST ROCK’ S DEGREE COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2021
TEAM CODE: 01
ST ROCK’ S DEGREE COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
IN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT
OF THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF
INDIANA
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.****/2021,
UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIANA, 1950
IN THE MATTERS OF
1. SHIKHAR SINGH…………………………………………………………... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. STATE OF Vindhya Pradesh

2. UNION OF INDIANA ................................................................................................. RESPONDENT
NAME OF THE COUNSEL

MINAKSHI MISHRA – ROLL.NO. 09 – FIFTH YEAR B.L.S / L.L.B.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS- i

ST ROCK’ S DEGREE COLLEGE OF LAW
MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................. V
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................................. VI
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION....................................................................................................... XI
STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................................... XII
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ......................................................... ………………………...………….XIII
SUMMARY OF A RGUMENTS.......................................................................................................... XIV
ARGUMENTS A DVANCED ................................................................................................................... 1
I. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS
COURT IS MAINTAINABLE ........................................................................................ 1
A. THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI TO APPROACH THE HONOURABLE

SUPREME COURT ............................................................................................................................ 1
II. Whether the Appellants should be held guilty

under the charges under Section 498-A, 306 and 304-B of the
Indiana Penal Code?
PRAYER ........................................................................... 17
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS- ii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
& And
§ Section
AIMP All India Muslim Personal Law

LB Board
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
A.P Andhra Pradesh
Govt. Government
ICCP International Covenant on Civil and

R Political Rights
IPC Indian Penal Code
Ltd. Limited
Ors. Others
P. Page
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SC Supreme Court
SLP Special Leave Petition
U.P. Uttar Pradesh
Vol. Volume
v. Versus
W.B. West Bengal
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS- iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Aga Mohamad Jaffer Bindanim v. Coolsoom Beebee and Ors. (1898) ILR 25 Cal. 9 ............ 10
Ahmedabad Women Action Group v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 573. ................................. 8
Anuj Garg v. Hotel Asscociation of India (2008) 3 SCC 1 ...................................................... 16
Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2008) 3 SCC 1 ........................................................ 17
Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham and Anr. (1979) (2) SCC 297......................................1
Associated Cement Companies Ltd v. P.N. Sharma (1965) 2 SCR 366....................................1
Athiest Society of India v. Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1992 AP 310 .................................. 5
B. K. Parthasarthi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2000 AP 156; Govind v. State of

M.P. (1975) 2 SCC 148 ........................................................................................................ 18
Bachan Singh, Sher Singh And Anr. v. State Of Punjab And Ors, AIR 1982 SC 1325 ............ 13
Baker Ali Khan v. Anjuman Ara Begum, 30 I.A. 94 ................................................................. 10
Balakrishna v. Rmaswami, AIR 1965 SC 195. ........................................................................... 2
Banwari Lal v. Trilok Chand, AIR 1980 SC 419. ..................................................................... 2
Baqar Ali v. Anjuman (1902) 25 All. 236 ................................................................................ 10
Barsay v. Bombay AIR 1961 SC 1762. .....................................................................................2
Bd of. Trustee of the port of Bombay v. Nandakarni Dilip Kumar Raghavendra AIR 1983 SC
109. ...................................................................................................................................... 17
Belgian Linguistic case, (1968) 11 Y.B.E.C.H.R 832 (N.33-34). ............................................. 11
Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1. .............................................................................. 5
C.C.E v. Standard Motor Products, AIR1989 SC 1298. .......................................................... 2
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS- iv

Krishna Singh v. Mathura Athir (1981) 3 SCC 689. .................................................................. 6
Lily Thomas and Ors. v. Union of India(2000) 6 SCC 224 .................................................... 11
Maharshi Avadhesh v. Union of India 1994 Supp (1) SCC 713. ............................................... 8
Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors v. Union Of India & Ors, AIR 1980 SC 1789 ................................ 11
Mohini v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 1858 ................................................................... 11
Moonshee Buzloor Ruheem v. Shumsoon-niss Begum (1867) 11 Moo. IA 551 ....................... 11
N Suriyakala v. A Mohan Doss & ors. (2007) 9 SCC 196. ....................................................... 2
Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, AIR 2002 SC 2036. ........................................ 2
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438 ................................ 11
National Legal Services.Authority v. Union Of India & Ors, AIR 2014 SC 1863 .................. 16
Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558 ........................................................................ 8
Nihal Singh & Ors v. State Of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26. .......................................................... 1
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Corpn., AIR 1986 SC 180 .................................................................... 17
Om kumar v. Union Of India , AIR 2000 SC 3689 .................................................................. 13
P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam and Anr. (1980) 3 SCC 141. ....................................... 1
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111 ............. 13
Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169. ................................................................................... 1
Rubinder Singh v.Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 65 ................................................................. 13
Sardar Sydena Taher Saifuddin Sahed v. State of Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853. ........................ 7
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538 ........................ 13
Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons. Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR
1962 SC 1314. ........................................................................................................................ 3
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS- v

OTHER AUTHORITIES
Abigail Lauren Perdue, “For Love or Money: An Analysis of the Contractual Regulation of
Reproductive Surrogacy” The Journal of Contemporary Health, Law and Policy 286 (2011)
..............................................................................................................................................16
Adams, Charles J. “Islamic Faith" in Introduction to Islamic Civilization, Cambridge UP,)

R.M. Savory (1976. ed.). ........................................................................................................ 9
Bernard G. Weiss, Search for God's Law: Islamic Jurisprudence in the Writings of Sayf Al Din
Al Amidi, University of Utah Press, U.S., p. 181 (Dec 1992). .............................................. 9
DeanHamer and P. Copeland The Science Of Desire: The Search For The Gay Gene And The
Biology Of Behavior (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1994) ............................................ 18
International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), Yogyakarta Principles - Principles on the

application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender
identity, March 2007 ...................................................................................................... 12, 18
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, S. Treaty Doc. No. 95- 20,
6 I.L.M. 368 (1967), 999 U.N.T.S. 171 ............................................................................... 20
BOOKS
2, Ramanatha Aiyer , Advanced law Lexicon, 2391 (3rd Edn. 2005) ...................................... 14
Abdul Rahim, Muhammadan Jurisprudence, 73 (2004 Edition) ............................................... 9
Mulla, Mohammedan Law, 15 (Dwivedi Law Agency, 2nd edition, 2007). ............................. 7
Robert Aldrich, “Gay and Lesbian History,” in Gay Life and Culture: A World History, 11
(New York: Universe Publishing, 2006 ............................................................................... 12
Tahir Mahmood, Muslim personal Law, 200 (1972). ................................................................ 6
D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Y.V. Chandrachud

& S.S. Subbramani & V.R. Manohar & B.P. Banerjee eds., Vol. 2, 8th ed. 2012
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS- vi

D.D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, Y.V. Chandrachud & S.S.
Subbramani & V.R. Manohar & B.P. Banerjee eds., Vol. 3, 8th ed. 2012
Justice M.N Ventakachaliah, Report Of The National Commission To Review The Working
Of The Constitution Of India., Electoral Process and Political Parties 7 (2000
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS- vii

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE PETITIONERS HAVE THE HONOUR TO SUBMIT BEFORE THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, THE MEMORANDUM
FOR THE APPELLANT UNDER ARTICLE 136 (SPECIAL LEAVE
PETITION) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950.
The appellant humbly submits this memorandum for the

petition before this learned court under the Article 136 of
Constitution of India
Article 136 Constitution of India: 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 .
THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS,

CONTENTIONS AND ARGUMENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE.
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS- viii

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. That it is a case of suicide by the deceased as evidenced by the suicide note
2. That death of the deceased was caused due to burning. Deceased was a somber girl
from middle class background which clearly states that she was under a serious
depression
So, this marriage was pressurized marriage by Arundhati’s side and Shikhar family
was unaware about this pressurized marriage.
Differences arose between Shikhar and Arundhati when Arundhati was not ready
for physical relationship as mentioned in the facts that couple was content with the
marital communion.
3. The three accused persons were related to the deceased in the following manner:
Shikhar Singh- Accused No.1 is the husband of the deceased and the present Petitioner,
Accused No.2 is the father- in-law of the deceased and Accused No.3 is the
mother-in-law of the deceased.
4. The letters written by the deceased to her father and the suicide note (from the spot of
incident) which had no mention about the dowry allegations were also recovered by
the Investigating Officer.
5. Before the Trial Court, following evidence was produced:

(I) PW-1, the mother of the deceased deposed that she handed over Rs. 20,000/- and
50,000/- on two occasions as dowry money, of which there is no evidence on record.
(ii) PW-2, the father of the deceased, was unaware about the said demand, as she had
concealed the same from him.
(iii) PW-3, Shanta Devi, who worked as a servant at the Appellant’s residence,
deposed to the fact that, on one occasion, she witnessed that Shikhar had taken away
Arundhati’s phone.
6. The Trial Court of Additional Sessions Judge after appreciating the evidence on record
and overlooking the evidence produced by the appellants/petitioners by placing heavy
reliance on the Suicide note wrongly convicted the Appellants under Section 498- A,
306 IPC and 304-B IPC.
Sentence of three years imprisonment under Section 498-A, four years simple
imprisonment under Section 306 IPC was imposed and seven years imprisonment 7
under Section 304-B.
7. Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, the Appellants consequently filed an
appeal before the High Court of Vindhya Pradesh. The High Court dismissed the
appeal and upheld the conviction under all the three offences.
8. Hence, this appeal has been preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana by
means of Special Leave Petition filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of Indiana.
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS- ix

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
-I-
WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COURT IS
MAINTAINABLE.
-II-
Whether the Appellants should be held guilty

under the charges under Section 498-A, 306 and
304-B of the Indiana Penal Code?
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS- xiii

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT

BEFORE THIS COURT IS MAINTAINABLE.
It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India, any person, aggrieved by any order or decision of any court in
India can approach the Supreme Court through a Petition for Special Leave. The
Petitioner has the locus standi to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court as civil
appeals not covered by Article 133 can be brought to the apex court under Article
136. Also, in case at hand the ‘substantial’ questions of law are involved. The
jurisdiction conferred under Art. 136 on the SC is a corrective one and not a
restrictive one. Hence Article 136 can be invoked for the same.
II. Whether the Appellants should be held guilty under the charges
under Section 498-A, 306 and 304-B of the Indiana Penal Code?
The basic essentials to attract SECTION 498A are:

The woman must be married;
She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and
Such cruelty or harassment must have been inflicted either by the husband of the
woman or by the relative of her husband
The appellant persons never asked for any cash for enriching themselves towards
DOWRY, Shikhar working at a local post office was very much content with his
salary and post at work. Any gifts, costly or otherwise, as exchanged between the
families is in accordance of the customary exchange of gifts and the settled law does
not tag such gifts as Dowry.
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS- xiv

SECTION 304-B
Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs
otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it
is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for
dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall
be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-
section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
Before death no cruelty,
In post mortem only 88% burns no bodily injuries. Bodily Injuries is aground for
section 304 b. In absence of bodily injuries then section 304 b doesn’t apply.
She did not burn because of pressure from her in laws or husband. No dowry was
taken. She was not subjected to any kind of cruelty by her husband or in law or
relatives of husband so section 304 b does not apply.
If there is no dowry connection then holding the appellants guilty is of no point.
SECTION 306
Abetment of suicide .-If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission
of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Suicide note doesn’t mention anything about dowry or her beinf harassed by Shikhar
or her in laws. Shikhar concealed letters Tina PW 4. He was shocked to see such
letters written by his wife he then asked Arundhati about it. He did not conceal the
letters so that it couldn’t reach Arundhati’s father he just kept it with him and then
asked Arundhati why she has written such letters to her father because whatever
written in that letter was false.
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS- xv

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS

COURT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT.
It is humbly submitted that the Special Leave Petition against the judgment of Hon’ble High
Court is maintainable under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Article 136 empowers the
Supreme Court to grant in discretion Special leave to Appeal from any judgement, decree,
determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal
in the territory of India.1 It is humbly submitted that powers under Article 136 can be exercised
against any kind of judgement or order which is causing injustice to any party, and to serve the
need, the power under Article 136 is unfettered.2
This SLP is maintainable as, firstly the petitioner has locus standi to approach the
Honourable SC [A], secondly the matter involves question of general public importance
involving a substantial question of law.
A. THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI TO APPROACH THE HONOURABLE SUPREME

COURT
It is humbly submitted before this Honourable SC that the appellant has locus standi to
approach the Honourable SC in the present case. Article 136 of the Constitution is couched in
the widest phraseology.3 This Court's jurisdiction is limited only by its discretion.4 It is
pertinent to note that the scope of Article 133 providing appeals to the SC in civil matters is
limited whereas Article 136 is very broad-based & confers discretion on the court to hear “in
any cause or matter”.5 The plenitude of power under Article 136 of the Constitution has been
authoritatively stated by the Constitution Bench in Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur
1
Art. 136, Constitution of India, 1950.
2
Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Ors. AIR 1954 SC 520; Associated Cement Companies Ltd
v. P.N. Sharma (1965) 2 SCR 366; Jose Da Costa and Anr. v. Bascora Sadasiva Sinai Narcornim and Ors.
(1976) 2 SCC 917; Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham and Anr. (1979) (2) SCC 297; P.S.R. Sadhanantham
v. Arunachalam and Anr. (1980) 3 SCC 141; Union Carbide Corporation and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
(1991) 4 SCC 584.
3
Nihal Singh & Ors v. State Of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26.
4
Ibid
5
Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169.
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS- 1

Raghuraj Singh and Ors.6 and the exercise of the said power by the Court cannot be curtailed
by the original constitutional provision or by any statutory provision.7 Therefore, civil appeals
may be brought to the SC under article 136 when these are not covered by Article 133.8
B. Issue one of this case is whether SLP is maintainable in this

case, then yes it is maintainable in the instant matter as article 136 of the
Indian Constitution empowers the supreme court to grant special leave
to appeal against any judgement or order or decree in any matter or
course, passed or made by any court/tribunal in the territory of India.
SNP under article 136 of the Indian Constitution can be filed in a case
where a substantial questions of law arises or gross injustice has been
done. Under this the aggrieved party is provided a special permission to
be heard in apex court in appeal against the order or judgement of any
court or tribunal in the territory of India. I humbly submit to this
honourable court that there has been some serious miscarriage of justice
in the investigation of the instant matter and by the dismissal of the
matter by the High Court. Appellant would humbly request this
Honourable court to correct the same and hear this matter. There are
certain facts and evidences in this matter which are not yet brought in
the light of the law.
In Ganga Kumar V state of Bihar, The Supreme Court has held that it is
open to the Supreme Court to interfere with the finding fact by the High
Court if the High Court has acted perversely or otherwise not properly.
In the instant case the High Court of Bombay has denied not only justice
to the appellant it has even failed in exercising its inherent jurisdiction
given under section 20 of the civil procedure Code. This has led to
severe injustice and loss to the appellant. Hence, it is humbly submitted
to this honourable court to hear the instant matter and grant justice to the
appellant.
It is Ahamed when is submitted that the Honourable court can dwell

into all matter on merits to grant justice.
There are certain grounds for SLP which are as follows:-

1 . SLP can be filed against any judgement or decree or order of any
High Court/tribunal in the territory of India.
2. Or, a selfie can be filed in case the High Court refuses to grant the
certificate of fitness for appeal to Supreme Court of India.
3. SLP can be filed against any judgement of High Court within 90 days
from the date of judgement.
4. Or a selfie can be filed within 60 days against the order of the High
Court refusing to grant the certificate of fitness for appeal to Supreme
Court.
In this instant case appellant satisfies all the grounds for a SLP. The
question arise by the appellant involved substantial questions of law.
Hence it is submitted that the honourable court to grant orders that could
remedy the Injustice that is being caused to the appellant .

II. Whether the Appellants should be held guilty

under the charges under Section 498-A, 306 and
304-B of the Indiana Penal Code?
SECTION 498A OF IPC-

The basic essentials to attract SECTION 498A are:
The woman must be married;
She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and
Such cruelty or harassment must have been inflicted either by the husband of the
woman or by the relative of her husband
The appellant persons never asked for any cash for enriching themselves towards
DOWRY, Shikhar working at a local post office was very much content with his
salary and post at work. Any gifts, costly or otherwise, as exchanged between the
families is in accordance of the customary exchange of gifts and the settled law
does not tag such gifts as Dowry.
There are different types of cruelty which are covered

in meaning of cruelty under ipc. Section 498a of the
indian penal code covers all types of cruelty, mainly
demand of cash or kind as dowry before marriage or
after marriage. Rest of the acts which could be called
as cruelty under ipc can be added as per every new
incident like harassing wife over her cooking style,
teasing her on basis of cast, face, height, colour etc.
Under section 498a of ipc cruelty includes the said
incidents and other defined by the courts from time to
time.
He defines “cruelty” as the act of inflicting physical or mental harm
on a woman’s body or health and forcing her or her relationship to
engage in acts of harassment aimed at forcing her to comply with
any illegal demands. Property or valuable security. Harassment for

dowry falls on the latter half of the department. Creating a situation
that makes a woman commit suicide is also an element of “cruelty”
MISUSE OF SECTION 498A IPC-
Females in India are increasingly misusing the section 498a ipc law
to harass in-laws. The actual fact lies here that there is terribly low
conviction rate in such form of section 498 ipc cases and much has
been written relating to the misuse of Section 498A of IPC that was
introduced with the declared objective to combat the menace of
harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his
relatives.
At times, the society sees only one side of the narrative and is quick
to judge the husband. This section is non- bailable , Non-
compoundable. it is the foremost easiest method to harass is to
induce the husband by filing 498a false case and his relatives under
this provision. In most of the cases Police Authorities file 498a
FIR against parents of husband who resides separately or married
sister who resides abroad or studying in different city. Where
false 498a FIR comes role of efficient 498a lawyer starts.
498a lawyer checks drawbacks and loopholes of false 498a
FIR, 498a case and suggest and advice victims accordingly. Only
lawyers can prevent 498a misuse. Most cases filed under this
section have didn’t pass legal scrutiny resulting in a really low
conviction rate.
WHAT DOES NOT HAPPENS IN CASE OF SECTION

498 IPC
MATTERS WHICH CREATES NEED OF 498A.
• The powers of the arrest on complaints relating to offence

under Section 498A IPC are to be exercised carefully and
cautiously.

• Power of arrest without a warrant should be exercised
only after a reasonable satisfaction is reached, after some
investigation, as to the genuineness and bonafides of a
complaint and a reasonable belief as to both the person’s
complicity as well as the need to effect arrest.
• In matrimonial disputes, it may not be necessary in all

cases to immediately exercise the powers of arrest.
Recourse may be initially taken to dispute settlement
mechanism such as conciliation, mediation, counselling of
the parties etc.
• Arrest under Sec. 498A of IPC on the basis of a complaint

should be done only with written order of the Police officer
of the level of District Police Chief or equivalent and it
should be ensured that there is sufficient material for
arresting the accused and charge sheeting the case.
• The service of professionally trained family counselors

shall be utilized for conciliation and mediation between the
spouses and their families so that frivolous cases are
screened at the initial stage itself and Section 498A IPC is
invoked in rare cases.
• The process of counselling by the Police Department

should be made professional by involving qualified
counselors and reputed NGO’s so that people have more
confidence in the mechanism and arrive at some
settlement without the use of section 498a ipc.
• In case of juveniles, Section 498A IPC should not be

invoked. However, in case of any aberrations, the Police
must ensure that the children are put under the care of
Child Welfare Committee.

IN INDIA, A WOMAN IS ALWAYS INNOCENT

UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. AND A MAN IS
ALWAYS GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT.
NECESSARY SITUATIONS OF ARREST IN 498A-
MEDICAL EVIDENCE OF ABUSE :

If wife approaches police station with the Complaint of harassment
and physical abuse by husband and relatives and at the time of
complaint if Police Authorities taken Complainant wife to the
Hospital for evaluating her wounds and injuries, positive medical
report proving fresh injury and wounds will create situation for
Police Authorities to investigate whole family by taking all of them
into police custody.
• SECTION 498A + SECTION 406 OF IPC :

Section 406 IPC relates to criminal breach of trust. If wife
approaches Police Station with complaint of harassment and
accuses husband and family that they refuse to return all jewelry
and articles of wife which she got in her marriage from both the
sides and if wife substantiate her claims with documents, it
becomes necessary for Police Authorities to immediately arrest
husband and relatives in order to recover jewelry of Complainant
wife. Section 406 of IPC is applied when jewelry and articles of wife
are in possession of husband and relatives and they refuse to
return it.
SECTION 498A COMPLAINT FORMAT
There is no complaint format for 498A, you can just mention the
series of the event of cruelty with respective dates and attach
evidence and documents available to you, addressing same to the
senior inspector of police of the police station where your
husband resides or where you reside.

Following are the grounds on which 498a anticipatory bail
rejected-.
1. Recovery of Jewellery and article of wife.
2. Recovery of dowry amount.
3. Pending investigation.
4. The arrest of the co-accused pending.
Chances of getting anticipatory bail in 498a depend upon above

factors.
498A QUASHING
When wife does 498a misuse filing 498a false case, the husband can
immediately file a petition for 498a quashing before Hon’ble High
Court stating reasons for 498a quashing.
If there are substantial evidence against wife and from the prima
facie study of FIR if it could be concluded that it is filed purposely,
the court will immediately stay charge sheet and call say of the wife
and investigating officer.498A quashing should be filed before
chargsheet because mostly court refuse to 498a quash after
chargesheet. Since chargsheet is proof that the investigation officer
completed the investigation and compiled all evidence, the role of
the trial court starts and it creates a need to be testified before the
trial court all the evidence and witnesses.
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar

Facts
The wife alleged that dowry was demanded from her and that she was
driven out of the matrimonial home on non-fulfilment of such demands.
The husband applied for anticipatory bail which failed. Therefore, by
special leave petition, the husband approached the Supreme Court.
Decision
In this case, the Court observed that the fact that Section 498A, IPC is a
cognizable and non-bailable offence, it is more often than not is used as
a weapon rather than shield by disgruntled wives. It results in harassing
the husband and his relatives by getting them arrested under this Section
and it is more disturbing to see bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers
being arrested without a prima facie case. Thus, the Court laid down
certain guidelines which the police officer must follow while arresting
under Section 498A, IPC or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
and that such arrest must be based on a reasonable satisfaction with
respect to genuineness of the allegation. Moreover, even the Magistrates
must be careful enough not to authorise detention casually and
mechanically.
Manav Adhikar vs union of India
Facts
The petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The
petitioners contended that it is not untrue that there are a number of
women suffering from violence at the hands of husband and his relatives
and that the accusation that Section 498A is being misused is not
supported from any concrete date on such misuse. It was further argued
that the social purpose behind Section 498-A IPC is being lost as the
rigour of the said provision has been diluted and the offence has
practically been made bailable by reason of various qualifications and
restrictions prescribed by various decisions of this Court including
Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P.
Cases referred
The Court referred to the principles stated in Joginder Kumar v. State of
U.P.[10], D.K. Basu v. State of W.B.[11], Lalita Kumari v. Government
of Uttar Pradesh[12] and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar[13] and
directed that the investigating officers be careful and be guided by the
same.
Decision
After referring to the directions, the Court concluded that the direction
with respect to Family Welfare Committees and their duties are not in
accordance with any provision of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The offence of cruelty is non-bailable and cognizable offence but due to
the direction making it impossible to arrest before the report of such
committee has made this ineffective. Thus the directions given in Rajesh
Sharma case has been modified by Court as further explained.The
direction with respect to constitution and duties of Family Welfare
Committee has been declared impermissible.
Further, direction pertaining to the settlement has been modified to
include that it if a settlement is arrived at, the parties can approach the
High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
High Court, keeping in view the law laid down in Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab[14], shall dispose of the same.
Bibi Parwana Khatoon v. State of Bihar (2017) 6 SCC 792

Facts
Similar to previous cases, the facts of this case are that the wife
was killed by setting her up on fire by her husband and her
relatives. The sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased
wife challenged the conviction in the Supreme Court.
Decision
The Court brought under notice the facts that the appellants in
the case did not even reside at the place of mishap. There was
no evidence to prove their charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, the Court acquitted them and held that the Court
must guard against false implication of the relatives.
MISUSE OF THIS SECTION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE GIVEN

JUDGEMENT AND I SERIOSLUY AS SENIOR AND RESPECTED
LAWYER OF CLIENT WOULD NOT ENTERTAIN OR ALLOW
THIS HARASSMENT OR A FAKE CASE ON MY CLIENT ANY
FURTHER. AS HE HAS ALREADY SUFFERED A LOT DUE TO
JUDGEMENT GIVEN BY HIGH COURT OF VIDHYA PRADESH
AND TRIAL COURT AND A BIGGEST LOOP HOLE POLICE
INVESTIGATION.
AND AS WE ARE AWARE ABOUT THE FACTS THAT
THERE WERE 20,000 AND 50,000RS TRANSACTION
ACCORDING TO MOTHER IN LAW I WOULD LIKE TO
QUESTION POLICE OFFCIER IN CHARGE WHERE THE MONEY
WHICH HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED OR WHERE IS THE
BANK DETAILS OR TRANSACTIONS OR EYE WITNESS IF THE
DEAL WAS DONE IN CASH.
EVEN ARUNDHATI FATHER BEING THE HEAD OF THE
FAMILY WAS NOT KNWOING THAT THIS TRANACTION HAS
BEEN MADE TO THEIR SON IN LAW BY HIS WIFE I WOULD
LIKE TO REPEAT IT WAS NOT A SMALL AMOUNT IT WAS
70,000RS AS HE THE PW- 2 (DAD)
Father was unaware about the demand of money which is said dowry by
the respondent as they were themselves not aware about the transaction
there was no communication between the husband and wife between
witness 1 and 2
As Arundhati Deceased had stop communication with the father
and father was aware that there was no response from his daughter
still father acted like he was not aware about that and he didn't
complain though Being a father he should have met his daughter
once or should have discuss this with his wife as a daughter was
not happy with the relationship she was totally depressed as
mention the fact she was the somber girl still Sarita Devi was
giving money to my client as the deceased mother was knowing
that her daughter is a somber girl still she was supplying the
money to her which is claimed by the respondent as dowry which
clearly states that I would like to conclude this statement which
was made against my client is totally false
And the allegations are also false as their motive was to get money
from my innocent client as their daughter committed suicide due
to depression
To Protect the image in the society of the daughter they not

even harassed my client but also granted money and his life in
prison with the false allegations through a suicide note
IT DEPARTNMENT Would HAVE Been AWARE IF

THERE WAS SUCHA BIG TRNASACTION.
w.e.f 1.1.2006, Pension is calculated with reference to
emoluments (i.e.last basic pay) or average emoluments (i.e.
average of the basic pay drawn during the last 10 months
of the service) whichever is more beneficial. The amount of
pension is 50% of the emoluments or average emoluments
whichever is beneficial.
Minimum pension presently is Rs. 9000 per month.

Maximum limit on pension is 50% of the highest pay in the
Government of India (presently Rs. 1,25,000) per month.
Pension is payable up to and including the date of death.
CONCLUDING STATEMENT-
THE REASON BEHIND THIS RESEARCH OF MEAGRE

PENSION IS TO PROVE THE COURT THAT THE INCOME
OF FATHER WAS VERY LESS COMPARE TO THE
AMOUNT TRANSACTED AND THE ALLEGATIONS ARE
FALSE AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHICH STATES
THAT MY CLIENT HAD ACCPETED THE MONEY OR
EVEN DEMANED FROM THE DECEASED FAMILY.
ALL THE ALLEGATIONS MADE UNDER SECTION 498A

ARE FALSE AND THERE IS NO CIRCUMSTANCIAL
EVIDENCE TO PROVE .

SECTION 306 OF IPC-
It has been humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that accused and
his family is
not guilty under section 306 Of indian penal code.
It appears that the accused and his family is not guilty to the charges
levelled against
him.
‘Abetment’ -
involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding
a person in doing of a thing. Without positive act on the part of the
accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, no one can be
convicted for offence under Section 306, IPC. To proceed against any
person for the offence under Section 306 IPC it requires an active act
or direct act which led the deceased to commit suaicide, seeing no
option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased
into such a position that he committed suicide.
This Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of

NCT of Delhi)1
had an occasion to deal with the aspect of abetment.
In the said case this Court has opined that there should be
an
intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the
accused. Besides, the judgment also observed that each person’s
suicidability pattern is different from the other and each person has
his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. In the said judgment it is
held that it is impossible to lay down any straightjacket form
ula
dealing with the cases of suicide and each case has to be decided on
the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
In the case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal2

in order to bring a
case within the purview of Section 306, IPC this Court has held as
under :
“12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that
before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section
306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and
circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced
before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and
harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no
other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be
borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there
must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the
commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action proximate to the time of
occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled
the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section
306 IPC is not sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section
306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission
of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the
commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act
of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission
of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged
with the said offence must be proved and established by the
prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306
IPC.”
So therefore in the instant matter

there is absolutely no basis to allege that the appellant has
abetted the suicide of the deceased.
From the relevant case laws it can be inferred that the burden of proof
lies on the prosecution to prove that the case falls in the ambit of section
306. As the thorough explanation of the sections have been given in the
aforesaid case laws it is evident that no ingredients of section 306 have
been satisfied in the present case. There neither has been any act or
ommission on the part of the appellants to instigate the deceased to
commit suicide nor the circumstantial evidences are consistent with the
charges of the prosecution. The benefit of doubt lies in favor of the
Appellants. Moreover the deceased was never subjected to cruelty by
the Appellants as the Appellants had always been supportive and caring
to the deceased and have always encouraged her to be positive and
contended although she used to be depressed everytime despite of the
love and support of the Appellants. The allegations of PW-1 are totally
baseless and the Appellants demand strict proof thereof.
SECTION 304B OF IPC-
Dealing with the charge of 304-B viz dowry death the Appellant
furnishes the verdict of the Apex Court in the case Satvir Singh vs State
of Punjab [2001 SC] whereby the Apex Court had acquitted the
Appellant by citing the following reasons - Thus, there is dearth of
evidence to show that Tejinder Pal Kaur (PW-5) was subjected to
cruelty or harassment connected with the demand for dowry, soon
before the attempt to commit suicide. When the position is such it is an
unnecessary exercise on our part to consider whether Section 116 IPC
can ever be linked with the offence under Section 304B IPC.
We, therefore, conclude that appellants cannot be convicted under

Section 116 IPC either by linking it with Section 306 or with Section
304B.
Further the Apex Court in the abovementioned case law had made the
following observations - It is not enough that harassment or cruelty was
caused to the woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if Section
304B is to be invoked. But it should have happened soon before her
death. The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer
to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or
even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot
indicated by that expression. The legislative object in providing such a
radius of time by employing the words soon before her death is to
emphasise the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been
the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should
be a perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry related
harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval elapsed between
the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is wide the
court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities the death
would not have been the immediate cause of her death. It is hence for
the court to decide, on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether
the said interval in that particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord
from the concept soon before her death.
In the present matter, there is no strict proof whether the Appellants
demanded any dowry in connection with the marriage as the averments
of PW 1 regarding the considerations are totally baseless and the
Appellants subject her to provide strict proof thereof. Further the
Appellants ask the prosecution to explain the fact that how the PW 2,
father of the deceased being a retired government employee and
surviving on meagre pensions has no knowledge of transfer of such
considerable amounts. The Appellants further state that the Apex Court
in the same aforesaid case has also ruled that -
Prosecution, in a case of offence under Section 304B IPC cannot escape
from the burden of proof that the harassment or cruelty was related to
the demand for dowry and also that such cruelty or harassment was
caused soon before her death.
In the present matter the prosecution has failed to prove the
abovementioned ingredients . Further it is a point to be considered that
if the Appellants had ever subjected the deceased to cruelty, the same
would have been stated by PW -3 , who in the present matter has only
stated that there were casual quarels between the couple.

PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced

and authorities cited, it is humbly requested that this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to adjudge and declare:
1. That the SLP is maintainable under Article 136 of the

Constitution of India, 1950.
2. The accused persons A-1, A-2 and A-3 be acquitted

from the charges levelled against each of them
3. The de facto complainant who brought a false case to

the Court, be levied with heavy cost for bringing upon
false litigation on to A-1, A-2 and A-3 under section
250 Cr.P.C.
4. The prosecution team, including the investigation

officer be saddled with heavy penalties to compensate
for the stigma caused to the accused and the loss and to
their reputation and standing in the society.
5. Pass any order or orders as this Court may deem fit in

the interest of equity, justice,fairness and good
conscience.
And pass any such order, writ or direction as the Honourable Court
deems fit and proper, for this the Appellants shall duty bound pray.




Moot Memorial

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Moot Memorial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ST ROCK’ S DEGREE COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT

ST ROCK’ S DEGREE COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

IN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT

OF THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.****/2021,

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

1. SHIKHAR SINGH…………………………………………………………... PETITIONER

1. STATE OF Vindhya Pradesh

NAME OF THE COUNSEL

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS- i

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................. V

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................................. VI

STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................................... XII

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ......................................................... ………………………...………….XIII

SUMMARY OF A RGUMENTS.......................................................................................................... XIV

ARGUMENTS A DVANCED ................................................................................................................... 1

I. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS

COURT IS MAINTAINABLE ........................................................................................ 1

A. THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI TO APPROACH THE HONOURABLE

II. Whether the Appellants should be held guilty

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS- ii

AIMP All India Muslim Personal Law

A.P Andhra Pradesh

ICCP International Covenant on Civil and

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SLP Special Leave Petition

U.P. Uttar Pradesh

W.B. West Bengal

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS- iii

Anuj Garg v. Hotel Asscociation of India (2008) 3 SCC 1 ...................................................... 16

Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2008) 3 SCC 1 ........................................................ 17

Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham and Anr. (1979) (2) SCC 297......................................1

Associated Cement Companies Ltd v. P.N. Sharma (1965) 2 SCR 366....................................1

B. K. Parthasarthi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2000 AP 156; Govind v. State of

Baker Ali Khan v. Anjuman Ara Begum, 30 I.A. 94 ................................................................. 10

Balakrishna v. Rmaswami, AIR 1965 SC 195. ........................................................................... 2

Banwari Lal v. Trilok Chand, AIR 1980 SC 419. ..................................................................... 2

Baqar Ali v. Anjuman (1902) 25 All. 236 ................................................................................ 10

Barsay v. Bombay AIR 1961 SC 1762. .....................................................................................2

Belgian Linguistic case, (1968) 11 Y.B.E.C.H.R 832 (N.33-34). ............................................. 11

Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1. .............................................................................. 5

C.C.E v. Standard Motor Products, AIR1989 SC 1298. .......................................................... 2

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS- iv

Krishna Singh v. Mathura Athir (1981) 3 SCC 689. .................................................................. 6

Lily Thomas and Ors. v. Union of India(2000) 6 SCC 224 .................................................... 11

Mohini v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 1858 ................................................................... 11

Moonshee Buzloor Ruheem v. Shumsoon-niss Begum (1867) 11 Moo. IA 551 ....................... 11

N Suriyakala v. A Mohan Doss & ors. (2007) 9 SCC 196. ....................................................... 2

Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, AIR 2002 SC 2036. ........................................ 2

Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558 ........................................................................ 8

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Corpn., AIR 1986 SC 180 .................................................................... 17

Om kumar v. Union Of India , AIR 2000 SC 3689 .................................................................. 13

P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam and Anr. (1980) 3 SCC 141. ....................................... 1

Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169. ................................................................................... 1

Rubinder Singh v.Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 65 ................................................................. 13

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS- v

Adams, Charles J. “Islamic Faith" in Introduction to Islamic Civilization, Cambridge UP,)

International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), Yogyakarta Principles - Principles on the

Abdul Rahim, Muhammadan Jurisprudence, 73 (2004 Edition) ............................................... 9

Tahir Mahmood, Muslim personal Law, 200 (1972). ................................................................ 6

D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Y.V. Chandrachud

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS- vi

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS- vii