CRE Code of Criminal Procedure. Problem 1.

Renuka Mitra was married to Shyamal Mitra in 2001. Initially they were passing happy conjugal life.
They had a son and a daughter. But due to intervention of their inlaws, including her sister-in-law
Shushila Mitra she was victim of demand of dowry, to bring more money from her parents’ house. Due to
her failure to meet the demand, the torture was augmented. On the date of alleged incident, in 2008,
cruelty was of such a nature that took away the life of Renuka Mitra. While she was in bathroom,
kerosene oil was poured and her in-laws lit match-stick and threw it inside the bathroom. She cried out
loudly for helf, to the knowledge of the neighbours. She got burned and died. With the information from
the neighbours, the police came in and seized the match-box and tin of kerosene oil and arrested the
husband, his father and mother, and also the sister Shushila Mitra. Criminal case was filed against all of
them u/s 498A, 304B, 306, IPC. They were put up before the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bankshall Court, Kolkata. On the first day of remand the prayer for bail was rejected and they
were remanded to police custody. On the second day the prayer for bail was again renewed by the defence
counsel. The grounds amongst others included that their premises were lying vacant, and the two children
were without due care. Only neighbours took care by providing food and other necessities. They could not
go to school. The prayer was put up to release Sushila Mitra, the sister-in-law so that she could take care
of the children.

Prosecution:

Defence:

CRE Code of Criminal Procedure. Problem 2.

Accused Sumita Sen, the daughter of the complainant Seeta Debi was alleged to have taken away Rs
50000 from the Account of her mother from State Bank of India. While doing so the daughter had forged
the signature of her mother from the specimen card. The moment it was detected the mother had filed
complaint before Detective Department (Fraud Section) of Lalbazar, Kolkata. Charge was framed u/s 406
and 465 of Indian Penal Code. The investigation was started. The main point of investigation was the
signature related. The police send the signature of the accused to handwriting expert to test the veracity of
the allegation. While the investigation was in progress the Bank Official was examined, the Account
books were checked to verify whether the amount was withdrawn, the complainant Seeta Debi, who was
an aged widow was repentant for lodging such complaint against her own daughter. She could not sleep in
the night. Thus being the state of affairs, she came with an application before the Court of Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, for withdrawal of the case. Her modest prayer for consideration amongst
others was that due to her old age and sufferance from diseases, she was at a loss, that what earthly
benefit will be derived in pursuing with the complaint and fervently prayed for the stoppage of the
investigation. Her prayer should be considered on compassionate ground. The ACMM raised certain
queries as to the tenability of the application. Firstly as the investigation was in process, trial did not
commence, since final report or charge sheet was not submitted at such stage, whether there was any
provision to stop the proceeding. Secondly the ACMM questioned whether the charge was compoundable
or not. The Prosecution questioned the jurisdiction of the ACMM in entertaining such prayer.
Prosecution:

Defense:

Moot Court Problem 3.

On source information the Kolkata Police had arrested Motilal Chauhan for dealing in spurious Basmati
Rice causing very wrongful loss to intending purchasers. What happened on the first day of remand when
police had send the accused for the personal custody in Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court for further
investigation. The Learned Public Prosecutor could not convince the Learned Court to remand him to
Police Custody. Instead he was send to Jail Custody. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (of
Enforcement Branch) was not happy with the decision and asked the Public Prosecutor to move again and
convince the Learned Court to remand the accused to Police Custody to unearth the crime. The Defense
Counsel vehemently opposed the petition of the Learned PP on the ground amongst others that once the
accused was send to Jail Custody, he cannot be remanded back to Police Custody at the sweet will of the
Police Authorities. It is highly unjust and improper.

Public Prosecutor:

Defense:

Problem 4.

On the complaint filed by Sandip Ray, son of Oscar-winning director Satyajit Ray, that the valuable
manuscripts, drawings and illustrations of eminent films like Pather Panchali, Ganashatru, etc., were
misappropriated by renowned critic and journalist Nirmal Acharya, (expired at the relevant period),
Deputy Commissioner of Detective Department sort for a search warrant. The fact briefly is this. The
deceased critic Nirmal Acharya was a close friend of Satyajit Ray, since boyhood. Having close intimacy,
he used to visit Ray’s house frequently. With passing of time, from the landmark creation of Pather
Panchali to Sonar Kella, when Satyajit Ray won international awards and became international figure,
critical acclamation from all parts of the world like US, UK, France, Italy, Germany, Holland, etc., were
dealt with by Nirmal Acharya. And being an eminent scholar he used to receive and reply to those critics
comments. Nirmal Acharya proposed to right a biography of Ray’s colourful life. And for that he required
the manuscripts, photographs, scripts, illustrations, drawings of Ray which acted as the foundations for
those epic creations. Satyajit Ray and Mrs Vijaya Ray, in good faith had handed over all those documents
referred above. In the mean time both Satyajit Ray expired and Nirmal Acharya also died. The
Government of West Bengal wanted to procure the original works of Satyajit Ray to retain them in an
archive in Nandan, considering them as national property. The State Government in pursuance to that
addressed to Uday Acharya, the brother of Nirmal Acharya to return back all the original works of Ray as
early as possible. In this matter Sandip Ray, the son of Satyajit Ray and his mother Vijaya Ray had
echoed the same intention. But curiously it was noticed that Uday Acharya said that the documents could
not be handed over as they could not be traced. The reply was unsatisfactory. Accordingly search warrant
was prayed before the Learned CMM and obtained. On obtaining the order the Police conducted the
search and it went though out the night. Substantial portion of documents were seized. This fact of seizure
was communicated to the Learned Court. Offence alleged against Uday Acharya prima facie was u/s 406,
that is criminal breach of trust.

Prosecution:

Defence:

Problem 5.

Sunita Chauhan came to Police Station in Agra to lodge complaint for the systematic ill-treatment by her
husband Sunil Chauhan, giving specific dates and time, not being supported by any medical evidence. Her
inlaws had a tacid support in the ill-treatment and did never come to the rescue of the informant. She not
being so educated and helpless, had to take the recourse of police action. The police did not record in true
letters what the informant intended to say which they were required to do u/s 154 CrPC. She was simply
asked to sign the complaint. The complaint was filed u/s 498A IPC, and the police arrested Sunil Chauhan
and kept him in police custody. From there he was send to SDJM Court in Agra. At the time of trial the
Learned Court had observed, that in the FIR, there was no such specific dates and time when the alleged
ill-treatment supported by torture were carried on. It appeared before the Learned Magistrate that it was a
plain complaint, a device to harass the husband and the inlaws.

Prosecution:

Defense:

Problem 6.
th
Sheela Malhotra was married to Vinod Malhotra on 15 March, 2001. From the very beginning she was
neglected by her husband. Being helpless she went to her mother’s place, having no father. She had no
independent income and passed through hardship. She informed her husband to pay her some allowance.
He refused to do so. She filed maintenance case against her husband u/s 125 CrPC in SDJM Court at
Patna. On receiving the summons, Vinod Malhotra entered his appearance. Amongst other grounds Vinod
Malhotra took the plea that his wife was living an adulterous life with Dheeraj Sharma, for which he
refused to maintain her. He came to know about the affair from the letters written to his wife by Dheeraj
Sharma which was lying with Dheeraj Sharma. The Learned Magistrate issued notice to Dheeraj Sharma
to produce the letters. Dheeraj Sharma mentioned that he did not have any of those letters. Vinod
Malhotra produced oral evidence of his friend Ratan Saha as to his knowledge over the issue to support
his case.

Counsel for the complainant:

Counsel for the opposite party:

Problem 7.

After the passing of order of maintenance to the wife Renuka Sahani by the Learned SDJM of
Bhubaneshwar, the husband Ajay Sahani willfully stopped the payment. On the petition of the wife the
Learned Court issued the warrant u/s 125 (3) of CrPC. The Counsel for the Opposite Party had urged
before the Court that she refused to live with the husband. Instead she lived separately, for those reasons
he denied her maintenance. On the other hand, the counsel for the petitioner contended that due to the
ground of cruelty and systematic ill-treatment she could not live with her husband.

Counsel for the petitioner:

Counsel for the Opposite Party:

Problem 8.

Renuka Jaiswal, a teenage girl, was a member of the Swimming Club Rajani, in Mumbai, and used to
practice swimming daily in the evening. The swimming club was situated very near to her house. Her
mother used to accompany her. Initially there was no problem. The swimming practice went on smoothly.
After few days some local ruffians namely Ranjit Kapoor, Ashish Nehra, Rupesh Kumar, used to follow
her, used to tease her and sing abusive songs in the local language like “aja meri bulbul”, in presence of
the mother. This was highly irritating and embarrassing. Question came up as to whether the girl could be
send any more for practice. The mother took Renuka Jaiswal, on the next day and the next day the same
kind of teasing went on. The mother went to local Police Station in Bandra and lodged a complaint u/s
509 of IPC, for abusive songs and gestures. Police could arrest Ranjit Kapoor (the others being
absconding) and produced him before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate in Mumbai. The Learned
Magistrate being annoyed with the nature of the crime had granted him bail u/s 436 of CrPC, since the
offence was bailable one. Now the Learned Magistrate while granting bail, had imposed a condition to
produce local sureties to the satisfaction of the Magistrate. The Learned Magistrate did so bearing in mind
that ill-famed boy Ranjit Kapoor will fail to produce local witnesses, hence would be kept in custody for
sometime, which would be his adequate punishment. The Defence Counsel argued in favour of the
accused saying that the decision of the Learned Magistrate was unfair as it was impossible for him to
procure and produce local surety.

Prosecution:

Defense:

Problem 9.

Balram Tiwari was one the three sons of Ramesh Tiwari who had garment business in Patna. Ramesh
Tiwari expired in 2000. Balram Tiwari was one of the co-sharers of the paternal business, but curiously he
had no separate business account in the bank. The mother Manorama Tiwari had overall control over the
business and upon the entire joint family. She had religious bent of mind indulging in bhajans of Tulsidas
and distributed sweets to the listeners after puja on every evening. The profits of the business was equally
shared by Manorama Tiwari. There was no complaint till Balram Tiwari married Yashoda Tiwari in 2002.
When the newly wedded wife Yashoda found that her husband had no such income to mention so that she
could defray her sundry expenses, she persuaded her husband to come out of joint family business and
establish himself separately. The husband resented from doing so. The mother Manorama Tiwari rebuked
Yashoda Tiwari. The husband Balram Tiwari being annoyed slapped her. She went to her mother’s house
and filed complaint u/s 498A IPC against the mother and the husband in the Court of District Magistrate,
Patna. During the course of trial she realized that if compromise could be effected and the peace of the
family could be restituted. When the defense counsel was willing to effect a compromise by the
complainant and filed a petition for compromise, the prosecution raised the issue before the Learned
Magistrate that section 498A was not compoundable.

Prosecution:

Defense:
Problem 10.

Rama Choubey, a rustic villager rushed to the police station in Gaya in Bihar, alleging that her husband
had being seriously assaulted by a group of miscreants, after admitting him in hospital. Simultaneously an
eye-witness Ramesh Dubey had followed her to the Police Station and narrated the incident in details.
Both the reports were entered in the general diary. At the trial in CJM Court, the prosecution relied on the
testimony of Ramesh Dubey as his statement was full of detailed information necessary for the purpose of
investigation. The defense argued that the first FIR though scriptic, should have been treated as FIR as
against the second one.

Prosecution:

Defense:

Problem 11.

Kishori Chakravarty along with others arranged for microphone as a part of preparation for going to
Picnic in Kolaghat near Kolkata. Music that was played in the microphone was very loud and created
annoyance to the neighbours. One of the neighbour Ramala Nath asked Kishori Chakravarty to reduce the
sound of microphone. The entire picnic party with Kishori Chakravarty went to their destination and
returned back in the evening. As a gesture of retaliation Kishori Chakravarty and others knocked the door
of Ramala Nath and entered inside, ransacked the house.and caused bodily injury. Police arrested Kishori
Chakrvarty and others and remanded them to the Court of Learned ACMM, Bankshall Court. The
sections in the remand petition like section 427, 448 IPC, were bailable. During the remand the Learned
ACMM being dissatisfied had asked the Public Prosecutor that the sections that had been used were
proper sections or grievous charges should be added to constitute the offence. The Public Prosecutor
admitted that section 454 should have added in the light of the facts and circumstances. The Police added
section 454 IPC in the next remand petition. The defense vehemently objected to it.
Prosecution:

Defense:

Problem 12.

Renuka Sahani in a claim for maintenance asserted reasonable cause for fearing to return to her husband
Ajay Sahani’s home as against the defense of the husband to say that he was prepared to take his wife
back. Renuka Sahani was married to Ajay Sahani in 2001. She left the house of Ajay Sahani due to his
conduct causing his wife to leave the protection of the husband which had tantamount to driving her
deliberately from the home. The major allegation against Ajay Sahani was that he was unhappy with the
food served to him by his wife. Her cooking was subjected to abuse and dissatisfaction. This systematic
state of affairs became unbearable and caused her to leave the house. Ajay Sahani wrote a letter to
Renuka Sahani asking her to return back one month after she left her house. Renuka Sahani claimed
maintenance of Rs 1000 per month in the CJM Court in Allahabad.

Petitioner:

Respondent: