Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 18

Team Code:

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIA

(SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

IN THE MATTERS OF

RADHEYAPPELLANT

v.

KALAWATI & ANOTHERS....RESPONDENT

IN THE ISSUES CONCERNING TO SECTION 498-A IPC, DELAY IN LODGING OF


FIR AND DELAY IN PRODUCING BEFORE MAGISTRATE & ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION BY THE PSU

MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT


AMITY INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................... iii


STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ......................................................................................................... v
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................................ vi
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ...................................................................................................................... vii
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................................. viii
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ..................................................................................................................... 1
Issue 1: WHETHER DELAY IN LODGING OF FIR IN CASES OF 498-A IS REASONABLE AND
ACCEPTABLE? .................................................................................................................................... 1
ISSUE:2 WHETHER DELAY IN PRODUCTION BEFORE MAGISTRATE AND THE TORTURE BY
THE POLICE INSPECTOR, JUSTIFIED AND REASONABLE? ........................................................ 2
ISSUE 3: WHETHER ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AGAINST RADHEY BY THE PSU, JUSTIFIED
AND REASONABLE? ........................................................................................................................... 5
ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE DECISION UNDER SECTION 498A OF IPC WAS IMPUGNED? ......... 7
PRAYER.........18

ii | P a g e Memorial on behalf of Appellant


AMITY INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SC Supreme Court
HC High Court
UCC Uniform Civil Code
UOI Union of India
AIR All India Reporter
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
FIR First Information Report
CRI.ll Criminal Manual
C.G Chhattisgarh
Bom Bombay
IPC Indian Penal code 1860
CrPC Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Doc. Document
Art. Article
Or. Other
Anr. Another
Sec. Section

iii | P a g e Memorial on behalf of Appellant


AMITY INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

C.B.I.S.C.B. v. Sakru M. Binjewar and Ors, 2010(112)Bom LR 3527: MANU/MH/0893/2010 .... 1


DG & IG of Police V. Prem Sagar, JT 1999 (8) SC 401 ................................................................ 3
DK Basu V. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416 .................................................................... 3
Khatri V. State of Bihar, (1981) 3 SCR 145 .................................................................................... 3
Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Punjab, [(2009) 13 SCC 330] ........................................................ 2
Narinder Nath v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 ..................................................................... 2
Novartis AG v. Union of India, (2007) 4 MLJ 1153 ...................................................................... 1
Sharifbai V. Sub-Inspector of Police, 1993 CriLJ 2183. ................................................................ 3
A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22 ........................................................................... 8
A.D.M Jabalpur v. S.S. Shukla, 1976 AIR 1207, 1976 SCR 172 .................................................. 4
Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr.......................................................................................... 8
Bandhua Mukti Morcha V. Union of India, (1997)10 SCC 549 ..................................................... 4
D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997)10 SCC 549 ................................................................. 4
Democratic Rights and Ors V. Union of India (UOI) and Ors, AIR 1982 SC 1473 ...................... 4
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain & Anr. on, 1976 (2) SCR 347 ........................................ 4
Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, AIR 1973 SC 2684................................................................ 4
Kumar v. UOI, Original Application No. 331/2011, 12th day of September, 2012 ...................... 6
Maharashtra State Financial Corpn. v. Suvarna Board Mill, 1994 AIR 2657, 1994 SCC (5) 5665
Malkiat Singh v. State of U.P, AIR 1999 SC 1522 ......................................................................... 5
Neelu Kohli v. Naveen Kohli, AIR 2004 All 1, II (2004) DMC 223 ............................................... 8
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa , AIR 1993 SC 1960................................................................. 5
Savitri Devi v Ramesh Chand & Ors., II (2003) DMC 328 ............................................................ 8
Srinivasalu v. State of A.P Appeal (Crl.) 11 of 2002 ...................................................................... 8
Sushil Kumar Sharma v. UOI, JT 2005 (6) SCC 266 .................................................................... 7
Vineet kumar v. UOI, Original Application No. 331/2011, 12th day of September, 2012 ............. 6

iv | P a g e Memorial on behalf of Appellant


AMITY INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellant have filed the case before the Honble Supreme Court under Article 136 of the
Indias Constitution which allows the Supreme Court in its discretion to 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. The petition filed is against the Judgment
given by the High Court of Chhattisgarh.

v|Page Memorial on behalf of Appellant


AMITY INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

STATEMENT OF FACTS

F1 Radhey was married to Kalawati since 2012

F2 Kalawati filed a complaint where she stated that her Radhey and his family members were
harassing her which frequently became violent.

F3 She feared for her life so she went to her maternal house in the year 2014.

F4 Under Section 468-A, Police filed the case and arrested Radhey, his brother Banwari, Father
Shyam Sunder, Mother Kokila Bai and two sisters Jennifer and Genelia from hia Paternal Village,
Manth, at midnight of 23rd February-24th February,2017.

F4 Chingum Singh, the Police Inspector tortured Radhey and kept him in Police Station for 3 Days.

F5 Radhey was produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur on 27th February,2017.

F6 A copy of FIR was sent by the complainant to the General Manager of PSU, where Radhey
was working since 1995. The General Manager on receiving the given information suspended
Radhey from his services.

F7 The Trial Court held Radhey and others guilty under Section 498-A, 34 and sentenced 3 years
of Imprisonment and with fine of Rs. 10,000, concurrently the General manager passed an order
to Radhey that he is Terminated from his Services.

F8 An Appeal was filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh which acquitted all but not Radhey,
reducing his imprisonment to 2 years and a fine of Rs. 7,000.

F9 The accused approached the Supreme Court under Special Leave Petition for relief.

vi | P a g e Memorial on behalf of Appellant


AMITY INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER DELAY IN LODGING OF FIR IN CASES OF 498-A IS REASONABLE AND


ACCEPTABLE?
2. WHETHER DELAY IN PRODUCING BEFORE MAGISTRATE AND THE TORTURE BY
THE POLICE INSPECTOR, JUSTIFIED AND REASONABLE?
3. WHETHER ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AGAINST RADHEY BY THE PSU, JUSTIFIED
AND REASONABLE?
4. WHETHER THE DECISION UNDER SECTION 498A OF IPC WAS IMPUGNED?

vii | P a g e Memorial on behalf of Appellant


AMITY INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue 1: WHETHER DELAY IN LODGING OF FIR IN CASES OF 498-A IS REASONABLE


AND ACCEPTABLE?

In the following case, Radhey was arrested on the midnight of 23rd -24th February, 2017, and he
was kept in the Police Station for 3 days, i.e. till 27th of February. During this period, he was
tortured, and being 24th a holiday, for Mahashivratri, the next day was a working day for the court,
so he must have been produced before the court -the next day itself, but that was not the case. In
the case, the Police authorities didnt take the prior permission from the magistrate even that they
need more days for investigation. So, the writ of Habeas Corpus comes into picture and therefore
article 22, 32, 57 also are in the que.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER DELAY IN PRODUCING BEFORE MAGISTRATE AND THE


TORTURE BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, JUSTIFIED AND REASONABLE?

Radhey was arrested at the midnight of 23-24th February, 2017 and was presented before on 27th
of February and according to Section 57 which reads the following lines: -

Person arrested not to be detained more than twenty- four hours. -No police officer
shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the
circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special
order of a Magistrate under section 167, exceed twenty- four hours exclusive of the time
necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's Court.

This right has been further strengthened by its incorporation in the Constitution as a
fundamental right. Article 22(2) of the Constitution proves that Every person who is arrested
and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-
four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to
the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period
without the authority of a magistrate.

Wherefore, Radhey was kept in the police custody for 3days, it was a malicious intention of the
Police Officer, there was no reasonable delay. Radhey was tortured which is violation of Article

viii | P a g e Memorial on behalf of Appellant


AMITY INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

5 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights that No one shall be subjected to torture or to


cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as well as Article 21 states the following,
thing where Radhey was tortured in the Police custody.

Section 55A of CrPC, deals with Health and safety of arrested person- It shall be the duty of the
person having the custody of an accused to take reasonable care of the health and safety of the
accused.

ISSUE 3: WHETHER ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AGAINST RADHEY BY THE PSU,


JUSTIFIED AND REASONABLE?

Therefore, these three arguments contend that Radhey cannot be removed from his job by the GM
on the ground of 498-a because it is not any ground to remove Radhey from his job, as mentioned
in the cases mentioned in the Arguments advanced and this attracts the ambit of Doctrine of
Legitimate Expectations, and the principles of Natural Justice.

ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE DECISION UNDER SECTION 498A OF IPC WAS IMPUGNED?

In accordance with the facts, Kalawati filed a complaint in which she had put an allegation on her
husband Radhey and his family members quoting that she was harassed since she had married to
Radhey i.e. from 2012; in the year 2014 she went to her maternal house and she lodged the FIR in
the year 2017, therefore there is delay in lodging FIR this amounts that she is trying to misuse the
section 498A IPC as the act of harassment started since the year 2012 and she contemplated all
the issues together in the year 2017,but she would have lodged the FIR in the very same year which
amounts that something is hidden on the part of Kalawati. Therefore, it amounts to misuse of
sec.498A i.e. Legal terrorism.

ix | P a g e Memorial on behalf of Appellant


AMITY INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue 1: WHETHER DELAY IN LODGING OF FIR IN CASES OF 498-A IS REASONABLE


AND ACCEPTABLE?

It is humbly contended to the court that following are the cases under which 498-A is not
reasonable and acceptable-

In the case of, Novartis AG v. Union of India1, delay in setting the law into motion by lodging of
complaint in court or FIR at police station is normally viewed by courts with suspicion because
there is possibility of concoction of evidence against an accused.

Further in the case of State of A.P. v. Madhusudhan Rao2, when the First Information Report was
lodged by the complainant more than one month after the alleged incident of forcible poisoning.
Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the First Information Report has
been highlighted. Delay in lodging the First Information Report, more often than not, results in
embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only
gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of coloured version,
exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and
consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity.

Judgement- In the above mentioned case, delay in lodging of FIR was declared as a ground for
the acquittal of the accussed.

The other case laws which supports the fact that delay of lodging of FIR is not a reasonable
ground are-

In, Central Bureau of Investigation through D.S.P., C.B.I.S.C.B. v. Sakru M. Binjewar and Ors3,
it was held that - delay in lodging First Information Report is fatal to the case.

1
Novartis AG v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 1
2
State of A.P. v. Madhusudhan Rao, [2008] INSC 1839 (24 October 2008)
3
Central Bureau of Investigation through D.S.P., C.B.I.S.C.B. v. Sakru M. Binjewar and Ors
,2010(112)BomLR3527:MANU/MH/0893/2010

1|Page Memorial on behalf of Appellant


AMITY INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

In the case of Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Punjab4, SC held that No conviction if there is
inordinate delay in complaint

In the facts of the case, Kalavati lodged the F.I.R after three years of leaving from her matrimonial
house and she moved towards the maternal house, this amounts to a hidden intent on the account
of Kalavati. Therefore, In the case of Narinder Nath v. State of Punjab5, a guildeline has been
issued under section 482 of CrPc by SC that a FIR can be quashed under the last stated section.

So, I request the honourable court to quash the FIR under section 482 of CrPc.

ISSUE:2 WHETHER DELAY IN PRODUCING BEFORE MAGISTRATE AND THE


TORTURE BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, JUSTIFIED AND REASONABLE?

Radhey was arrested at the midnight of 23-24th February, 2017 and was presented before on 27th
of February and according to Section 57 of CrPC, 1973 which reads the following lines: -

Person arrested not to be detained more than twenty- four hours-No police officer shall detain in
custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of
the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate
under section 167, exceed twenty- four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from
the place of arrest to the Magistrate's Court.

This right has been further strengthened by its incorporation in the Constitution as a
fundamental right. Article 22(2) of the Constitution proves that Every person who is arrested
and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-
four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to
the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period
without the authority of a magistrate.

Wherefore, Radhey was kept in the police custody for 3 days, it was a hidden intention of
the Police Officer, there was no reasonable delay. Radhey was tortured which is violation
of Article 5 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights that No one shall be subjected

4
Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Punjab, [(2009) 13 SCC 330]
5
Narinder Nath v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466

2|Page Memorial on behalf of Appellant


AMITY INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as well as Article


21 states the following, thing where Radhey was tortured in the Police custody. Article 7
of the ICCPR covenant provides that no one shall be subjected to torture or cruel,
inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment.
Section 55A of CrPC, deals with Health and safety of arrested person- It shall be the
duty of the person having the custody of an accused to take reasonable care of the health
and safety of the accused.

In the case of Khatri V. State of Bihar6 and DG & IG of Police V. Prem Sagar7, The Supreme
Court has strongly urged upon the State and its police authorities ensure

that this constitutional and legal requirement to produce an arrested person before Judicial
Magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest be scrupulously observed. This healthy provision enables
the magistrates to keep check over the police investigation and it is necessary that the magistrates
should try to enforce this requirement and where it is found disobeyed, come heavily upon the
police.

Radhey was kept in the custody for 3 days, and it could be seen the malicious intention of the
police officer as he was not produced before the court at the said time and it has completely violated
Section 57 of CrPC, 1973.

It was observed by the court in the case of Sharifbai V. Sub-Inspector of Police8, if a police officer
fails to produce an arrested person before a Magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest, he shall be
held guilty of wrongful detention.

In the case of D.K. Basu V. State of West Bengal9 The expression "life or personal liberty" in
Article 21 includes a guarantee against torture and assault even by the State and its functionaries
to a person who is taken in custody and no sovereign immunity can be pleaded against the liability
of the State arising due to such criminal use of force over the captive person.

6
(1981) I SCC 627,632:198I SCC (Cri) 228: I981 Cri LJ 470
7
(1999) 5 SCC 700: I999 SCC (Cri) I036
8
AIR I961 Bom 42
9
(1997) 1 SCC 416

3|Page Memorial on behalf of Appellant


AMITY INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

The court also observed the following things in D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal that "custodial
torture is a naked violation of human dignity and degradation which destroys to a very large extent
human personality. It is a calculated assault on human dignity and whenever human dignity is
wounded, civilization takes a step backwards- flag of humanity must on each such occasion fly
half-mast. The convicts, under trials, detention and other persons in custody cannot be denied the
precious right to live with human dignity. Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment would fall within the inhibition of Article 21 of the Constitution, whether it occurs during
investigation, interrogation or otherwise. "State terrorism" is no answer to combat criminality.

In the case of Francis Coralie Mullin V. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Ors10,
Bandhua Mukti Morcha V. Union of India11, People's Union for Democratic Rights and Ors V.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors12, the court came with the same view point that Article 21 has been
understood in the Indian judiciary to protect the right to be free from torture. This view is held
because the right to life is more than a simple right to live an animalistic existence.

Therefore, where the investigation of the offence for which accused has been arrested cannot be
completed within 24 hours and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information
against the accused is well-founded, the police is obliged to forward the accused along with the
case diary to the nearest Magistrate for further remand of the accused person.13

The remedy by way of a writ of habeas corpus is more general than relief against official action.
It lies even against illegal detentions by private persons although not under Art. 32 which is
confined to enforcement of Fundamental Rights.14

In Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate15, while enunciating the real scope of writ of habeas corpus,
the Supreme Court opined that while dealing with a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the court
may examine the legality of the detention without requiring the person detained to be produced
before it.

10
AIR 1981 SC 746
11
(1997)10SCC549
12
AIR 1982 SC 1473
13
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain & Anr , 1976 (2) SCR 347
14
A.D.M Jabalpur v. S.S. Shukla, 1976 AIR 1207, 1976 SCR 172
15
Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, AIR 1973 SC 2684.

4|Page Memorial on behalf of Appellant


AMITY INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa16, the Orissa police took away the son of the petitioner for
the purposes of interrogation & he could not be traced. During the pendency of the petition, his
dead body was found on railway track. The petitioner was awarded compensation of Rs. 1, 50,
000.

In Malkiat Singh v. State of U.P17, the son of a person was allegedly kept in illegal custody by the
police officers. It was established that the son was killed in an encounter with the police. The court
awarded Rs. 5, 00,000 as compensation to the petitioner.

ISSUE 3: WHETHER ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AGAINST RADHEY BY THE PSU,


JUSTIFIED AND REASONABLE?

The administrative action against Radhey is not justified as-

It is against the basic principle of Natural Justice that is Audi alteram partem. It is a Latin phrase
meaning "listen to the other side", or "let the other side be heard as well". It is the principle that no
person should be judged without a fair hearing in which each party is given the opportunity to
respond to the evidence against them.

This Latin principle includes Right to notice, which was not given to Radhey, they directly
terminated Radhey from his Job. This was established in the case of Maharashtra State Financial
Corpn. v. Suvarna Board Mill.18

In the following case, Radhey wasnt given a reasonable opportunity to present his points to the
PSU or in the other words we can say that the PSU, didnt gave Radhey a chance to make his point
or to be heard. The PSU on only receiving the copy of the FIR teriminated Radhey from his post.

In the case of Vineet kumar v. UOI19, SC held that Government cannot cancel appointment of
candidate or terminate on the ground that 498A or a criminal case is pending upon him.

Now, contemplating towards Doctrine of Legitimate expectations-

16
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960
17
Malkiat Singh v. State of U.P, AIR 1999 SC 1522
18
Maharashtra State Financial Corpn. v. Suvarna Board Mill, 1994 AIR 2657, 1994 SCC (5) 566
19
Vineet kumar v. UOI, Original Application No. 331/2011, 12th day of September, 2012

5|Page Memorial on behalf of Appellant


AMITY INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

20
In, J.P.Bansal v State of Rajasthan, The Supreme Court while examining the doctrine of
legitimate expectation held that:

The principle of legitimate expectation is at the root of the rule of law and requires regularity,
predictability and certainty in governments dealings with the public. For a legitimate expectation
to arise, the decisions of the administrative authority must affect the person by depriving him of
some benefit or advantage which either:

(i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately
expect to be permitted to continue to do until there has been communicated to him some rationale
grounds for withdrawing it or where he has been given an opportunity to comment;

(ii) or he has received assurance from the decision maker that they will not be withdrawn without
giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that they should not be
withdrawn.

The procedural part of it relates to a representation that a hearing or other appropriate procedure
will be afforded before the decision is made. The substantive part of the principle is that if a
representation is made than a benefit of substantive nature will be granted or if the person is already
in receipt of the benefit than it will be continued and not be substantially varied, then the same
could be enforced. An exception could be based on an express promise or representation or by
established past action or settled conduct. The representation must be clear and unambiguous. It
could be a representation to an individual or to a class of persons.

Therefore, these three arguments contend that Radhey cannot be removed from his job by the GM
on the ground of 498-a because it is not any ground to remove Radhey from his job, as mentioned
in the earlier cases and this attracts the ambit of Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations.

20
J.P.Bansal v State of Rajasthan, 2003 AIR 1405

6|Page Memorial on behalf of Appellant


AMITY INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE DECISION UNDER SECTION 498A OF IPC WAS IMPUGNED?

In accordance with the facts, Kalawati filed a complaint in which she had put an allegation on her
husband Radhey and his family members quoting that she was harassed since she had married to
Radhey i.e. from 2012; in the year 2014 she went to her maternal house and she lodged the FIR in
the year 2017, therefore there is delay in lodging FIR this amounts that she is trying to misuse the
section 498A IPC as the act of harassment started since the year 2012 and she contemplated all the
issues together in the year 2017,but she would have lodged the FIR in the very same year which
amounts that something is hidden on the part of Kalawati. Therefore, it amounts to misuse of
sec.498A i.e. Legal terrorism.

Concept of Legal Terrorism:

A critical study of the section 498A reveals that a provision which was originally designed to
protect the bride from being harassed and physically tortured by the husbands or relatives
unfortunately has been abused to hassle the husband and his family.

In our case Kalawati went against the contention of this section which is a hidden intent and that
hidden intent can be Fraudulent Marriages or extortion but the facts remain silent on this
contention.

The Supreme Court in one of its rulings said that - But by misuse of the provision (IPC,
1860 498A - Dowry and Cruelty Law) a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The
provision is intended to be used as a shield and not an assassins weapon.21

A number of cases have been filed in the police station which forms the basis for the official
statistics of harassment, which otherwise implicates that only the woman is entitled to file
harassment cases with an unlimited scope of fabricating stories and lies without even
undergoing any penalty to pay compensation or any kind of damages.

21
Sushil Kumar Sharma v. UOI, JT 2005 (6) SCC 266

7|Page Memorial on behalf of Appellant


AMITY INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

The Supreme Court of India through various decisions has explained the concept of cruelty such
as:

In Neelu Kohli v. Naveen Kohli, it was held by the apex court that in order to constitute
cruelty the acts complained of as causing cruelty must be more serious than ordinary wear
and tear of marriage. Not any and every abnormal act of the other party can be viewed as
mental cruelty. 23
In A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur24, the apex court held that for physical cruelty there can
be tangible and direct evidence but in mental cruelty there may not be direct evidence.
When there is no direct evidence, courts are required to probe into the mental process and
mental effect of incidence that are brought out in evidence.25

Supreme Court in 2007 in case of Srinivasalu v. State of A.P26 held that consequences of cruelty
that are likely to cause grave injury or danger to her life must be established before arresting the
husband and his relatives. Punjab police has refused to arrest in a 498a case led in Jun 2014 citing
this SC judgment27

There is a gross violation or misuse of this penal provision as with the women frivolously making
false allegations against their husbands with the purpose of getting rid of them or simply hurting
the family. The abuse of this section is rapidly increasing and the well-educated women know that
this section is both cognizable and non-bail able and works on the complaint of the women and
placing the man behind bars. Like in the case of Savitri Devi v Ramesh Chand &Ors28the court
held clearly that there was a misuse and exploitation of the provisions to such an extent that it was
hitting at the foundation of marriage. The court believed that authorities and lawmakers had to
review the situation and legal provisions to prevent such from taking place.

22
AIR 2004 All 1, II (2004) DMC 223
23
AIR 2006 SC 1675
24
(2005) 2 SCC 22:
25
(2005)2 SCC 22
26
Appeal (Crl.) 11 of 2002
27
Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar & Anr on 2 July, 2014
28
II (2003) DMC 328

8|Page Memorial on behalf of Appellant


AMITY INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited it is most
humbly and respectfully requested that this Honble Court to adjudge and declare on behalf of
appellant:

1. The delay in lodging FIR was unreasonable and unjustified.


2. The delay in production before Magistrate and the torture by the Police Inspector was
unjustified and unreasonable.
3. Administrative Action against Radhey by the PSU was unjustified and unreasonable.
4. The decision given by the HC was impugned on the grounds of 498-A and above quoted
issues.

The court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which the Honorable Court may deem fit
in the light of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is respectfully submitted

Counsel for the Appellant

9|Page Memorial on behalf of Appellant