Team Code LLDC - 071

Late Lala Dip Chand Memorial National Moot

Court Competition, 2021
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

CLUBBED Cr. WRIT PETITION U/A 226/227

In The Matter of:

VEER SINGHANIA

(PETITIONER)

VS.

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH & ORS.

(RESPONDENT)

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE HIGH

COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

OF CLUBBED Cr. WRIT PETITION 1 & 2

1
 Team Code LLDC - 071

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6
MEMO OF PARTIES 7
STATEMENT OF FACTS 8
QUESTIONS OF LAW 10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 11
Issues raised out of Criminal Writ Petition-1 (Veer Singhania v. U.T. Chandigarh & Ors.): - 11
1. Whether a competent Court in India has jurisdiction to try the present case? 11
2. Whether trial of Veer by the Court in India, for the same charges that he had already faced in 12
Dubai, as that would amount to Double Jeopardy?
3. Whether Veer has committed the alleged offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 367, 368, 13
369, 370, 371 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 5, 8 of the Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956?
Issues raised out of Criminal Writ Petition-2 (Veer Singhania v. U.T. Chandigarh & Ors.): - 14
1. Whether alleged transaction through bitcoins and its exchange into Indian currency is contrary 14
to law in India?
2. Whether Veer has committed the alleged offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention 15
of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and Section 13 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act,
1999?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 17
Issues raised out of Criminal Writ Petition-1 (Veer Singhania v. U.T. Chandigarh & Ors.): 17
1. Whether a competent Court in India has jurisdiction to try the present case? 17
1.1. Whether the Central Government Sanction is needed in the present writ petition or not? 17
1.2. Whether the present Hon’ble High Court has the right to quash the F.I.R.? 17
Issues raised out of Criminal Writ Petition-2 (Veer Singhania v. U.T. Chandigarh & Ors.): 18
1. Are the P2P transactions, i.e. Peer to Peer transactions covered under the RBI Regulations? 18
2. Can Virtual Currency be considered as currency under the Money Laundering Act? 19
Prayer 21

2
 Team Code LLDC - 071

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION FULL-FORM

& And

AIR All India Reporter

art. Article

ed. Editor

Hon’ble Honourable

id. Ibidem

LJ Law Journal

Del Delhi

No. Number

Ors. Others

p. Page

SCC Supreme Court Cases

pt. Point

SCR Supreme Court Reports

U/S Under Section

U.A.E. United Arab Emirates

Cr. P.C. Criminal Procedure Code

Cr. Criminal

3
 Team Code LLDC - 071

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

1. Monica Bedi v. State of AP, (2011) 1 SCC 284 (India)

2. Mohammed Sajeed K. v. State of Kerala 1995 Cri.L.J.3313 (India)
3. Ajay Agarwal v. Union of India And Ors 1993 AIR 1637, 1993 SCR (3) 543 (India)
4. Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India, Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 528 of 2018, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2018 (India)
5. Purushottamdas Dalmia v. State Of West Bengal, 1962 2 SCR 101 (India)
6. Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh Through Principal Secretary And
Another, (2011)9 SCC 527 (India)
7. Subramanium Sethuraman v. the State of Maharashtra, (2005 SCC (Crl) 242
8. Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, 2004 7 SCC 338 (India)
9. Halsbury's Laws of England, 2nd Edn., Vol. 9 (India)
10. Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 415 at p. 422 (India)
11. K Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 266 (India)
12. Delhi Administration v. Ram Singh (AIR 1962 SC 63) (India)
13. Remla And Another v. S.P Of Police And Others, 1992, 1993 (1) KLT 412) (India)
14. State of U.P v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., (1991) 4 SCC 139 (India)
15. State of Kerala v. K. Sankaran Nair (1993 (1) KLJ 956) (India)
16. Hari Singh v. State Of Haryana, (1993) 3 SCC 114 (India)
17. Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhthija v. Collector, Thane (AIR 1991 SC 1893) (India)
18. Shridhar v. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur (1990 Supp SCC 157: AIR 1990 SC 307) (India)

Statutes

The Constitution of India, 1950.……………………………………………………………

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.……………………………………………...
Indian Penal Code, 1860……...…………………………………………………………….
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973…………………………………………………………….
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 …………………………………………………...
Criminal Penal Code of UAE (Federal Law No. 3 of 1987) ……………………………….
Combat Human Trafficking, Federal Law No. 51 of 2007………………………………....
General clause Act 1897……………………………………………………………………
4
 Team Code LLDC - 071

Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947…………………………………………………...

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908……………………………………………………………..
Banning of Cryptocurrency and Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill, 2019……...
Indian Evidence Act, 1872…………………………………………………………………
The Coinage Act, 2011…………………………………………………………………….
Extradition Treaty between the Government of the Republic of India and the United Arab
Emirates, 2000…………………………………………………………………………….
Reports Referred

1. Inter-Ministerial Committee, Union of India Report on Cryptocurrency dated

28.02.2019.
2. International Conventions for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the
Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others, 1949 (Signed by India on May 9, 1950).
3. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
(CEDAW)- Convention enforced with effect from 3rd September 1981.
4. The Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, 1993
5. The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially
Women and Children (Trafficking Protocol), 2001.

Circular

• RBI/2017-18/154. DBR.No.BP.BC.104 /08.13.102/2017-18. April 6, 2018

Books
1. Double jeopardy William Bernhardt
2. Lexis Nexis Twentieth Edition of code of Criminal Procedure
3. Taxmann Foreign exchange Management Manual
4. Professional’s the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999
5. Sunil Kumar Gupta a Practical Guide to The Prevention of Money Laundering
6. Taxman’s Benami Black Money and Money Laundering Laws
7. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal Code of Criminal Procedure
8. R.V. Kelkar’s Code of Criminal Procedure
9. Universal’s Bare Act of I.P.C.
10. Universal’s Bare act of Cr.P.C.
11. Universal’s Bare act of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA)
12. Constitution of India by B.R. Ambedkar
5
 Team Code LLDC - 071

JURISDICTION

The counsel humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court under Article 226
of The Constitution of India. This Article mentions the Appellate Jurisdiction of The High
Court in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including
in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto, and
certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III.

Also, the inherent powers of the High Court for Quashing the baseless F.I.R./ Chargesheet/
Complaint. This is more prevalent than 482 Cr.P.C. in interfering in the arbitrary police
investigation and also to prevent the abuse of the court process. Also, Petitioner is a citizen of
India.

The Counsels for the Petitioner most respectfully submit to this jurisdiction of the Hon’ble

High Court.

6
 Team Code LLDC - 071

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Hon’ble
Court to pass necessary orders and direction, thereby Quashing and Cancelling the F.I.R. No.
920/2019 & F.I.R. No. 923/2019 as clubbed before this Hon’ble Court.

MEMO OF PARTIES

Veer Singhania
……Petitioner

1. Union Territory of Chandigarh

2. Union of India represented by Chief Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi.
3. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Secretariat, New Delhi.
4. Swapna Singh W/o Bhisham Singh mother & legal guardian of Rohini Singh
5. Bhisham Singh father & legal guardian of Rohini Singh

……Respondents

7
 Team Code LLDC - 071

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Background facts, in a nutshell, are as follows:

1. That Petitioner, Veer Singhania fell in love and got married to Rohini Singh on dated
31.12.2018 without the consent of Rohini’s parents.
2. On 05.01.2019, the petitioner left for his honeymoon to Dubai. Also, the airline offered the
honeymoon package to the newly wedded couple. During the travel, Petitioner met Sheikh
Abdul Tayyar, who was on his way to Dubai from Italy.
3. The petitioner along with his wife reached Abdul Tayyar’s residence. Sheikh invested
7,000 Bitcoins in the mobile payment gateway that the petitioner was building. While
petitioner’s wife Rohini joined the three wives of Sheikh Tayyar.
4. On departure, petitioner called up for his wife, but it’s a matter of utmost surprise that all
the present members around the petitioner including Sheikh Tayyar, his three wives, hotel
staff, and driver who dropped them at the Tayyar’s residence denied the fact that Petitioner
came here with his wife or any other women. They all stated that the petitioner came alone
not only at the Tayyar’s residence but also in Dubai’s hotel.
5. The petitioner feels so dejected, confused & afraid because he was neither able to find his
newly wedded wife, Rohini; nor her belongings (clothes, camera, passport, and other
things) at the hotel. Even the hotel staff stated that he has booked the business suite not the
honeymoon suite at their hotel.
6. Petitioner’s father-in-law, Bhisham Singh Respondent No.5 who is a Commissioner of
Central Excise, Chandigarh arrived in Dubai, directly at the hotel in search of Rohini. It is
to be noted here that, this marriage is without the consent of Rohini’s parents; then it
is really surprising that the petitioner’s in-laws know about their hotel of stay in
Dubai.
7. Petitioner explained and narrated the whole story of Sheikh Tayyar’s residence to his father
in law but as this marriage is without his consent, that’s why he filed a false complaint
against Petitioner in Dubai (UAE) Police station.
8. Dubai’s police charged Petitioner under Article 344 of Penal Code and Article 2 of Federal
Law on Combating Human Trafficking and investigated the matter from Chandigarh’s
police and Immigration and Custom Bureau. After trial (UAE) Dubai Court acquitted
Petitioner and directed police to investigate Sheikh Abdul’s activities.
9. On 21st Dec 2019, petitioner after complete acquittal from all charges flew back to his
nation India and was arrested by the Chandigarh police at I.G.I Airport and was taken for
8
 Team Code LLDC - 071

questioning based on false FIR No. 920/2019 under Sections 363, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370,
371 of I.P.C. and Section 5, 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,1956 registered by
Swapna Singh Respondent No.4, petitioner’s mother-in-law on 16th Dec 2019 i.e. after the
acquittal of petitioner from Dubai’s Court.
10. Petitioner was granted bail on 29th Dec 2019, on the bail bond of Rs 28 Lakh, to payout
his legal defences and other needs, petitioner exchanged the 5000 Bitcoins under his
possession by currency broker Rahamat Saeed in 46,00,000/- cash.
11. On reacting over this transaction, the Chandigarh Police arrested the petitioner & Rahamat
Saeed and filed an FIR No. 923 of 2019; dated January 1, 2019; under Section 4 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and Sections 3, 4, 7 and 13 of the Foreign
Exchange Management Act, 1999.

9
 Team Code LLDC - 071

Questions of Law
Issues raised out of Criminal Writ Petition-1 (Veer Singhania v. U.T. Chandigarh &
Ors.): -

1. Whether a competent Court in India has jurisdiction to try the present

case?......................

2. Whether trial of Veer by the Court in India, for the same charges that he had already
faced in Dubai, as that would amount to Double Jeopardy?

3. Whether Veer has committed the alleged offence punishable under Sections 363, 366,
367, 368, 369, 370, 371 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 5, 8 of the
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956?

Issues raised out of Criminal Writ Petition-2 (Veer Singhania v. U.T. Chandigarh &
Ors.): -

1. Whether alleged transaction through bitcoins and its exchange into Indian currency is
contrary to law in India?
2. Whether Veer has committed the alleged offence punishable under Section 4 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and Section 13 of the Foreign Exchange
Management Act, 1999?

10
 Team Code LLDC - 071

Summary of Arguments
Issues raised out of Criminal Writ Petition-1 (Veer Singhania v. U.T. Chandigarh &
Ors.): -
Issue 1: Whether a competent Court in India has jurisdiction to try the present case?
Argument: - Yes, a competent court in India has jurisdiction to try the case in F.I.R. No.:
920/2019 as the petitioner is a citizen of India and believes in the law of land. But no such
offence that is committed outside India, shall be inquired into or tried by any competent court
in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government i.e. Respondent No. 2, as
per Section 188 of Cr. P.C1. In the present case, the respondents have no prior sanction from
the central government, not even till the present. As the alleged offence of Human Trafficking
is committed outside the Indian territory as per the respondent’s version. That’s why the
competent authorities can only do the investigation, but no inquiry or trial against the
petitioner2. In Mohammed Sajeed K. v. State of Kerala, 1995 Cri.L.J.3313 (India) the apex
court said that “The proviso to Sec. 188 of the Code3 is mandatory and the absence of sanction
is an absolute bar to the inquiry or trial of a case to which the provisions contained in that
section apply.” Direct arresting the petitioner, based on bogus F.I.R. by respondent no. 4,
without any additional evidence in a violation of this. In the landmark judgment of Ajay
Agarwal vs Union of India And Ors4, that the consequence of conspiracy and cheating took
place in India, thus the offence was not committed outside the country. In the present matter,
the term ‘act’ i.e. Actus Reus is committed outside the territory of India. Even none of the
responding parties tried for the Extradition proceedings, as respondent no. 5 itself started the
proceedings in the foreign territory and respondent no. 5 failed in his mala-fide intentions then
the wife of respondent no. 5 i.e. respondent no. 4, started the criminal proceedings against the
petitioner in India. Also, the mistake of law5 is not valid as per many supreme court
judgements6, we have to read law as per legislation.7

1
Code Crim. Proc. § 188
2
Mohammed Sajeed K. v. State of Kerala, 1995 Cri.L.J.3313 (India)
3
Code Crim. Proc. § 188
4
Ajay Agarwal v. Union of India And Ors, 1993 AIR 1637, 1993 SCR (3) 543 (India)
5
Shridhar v. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur (1990 Supp SCC 157: AIR 1990 SC 307) (India)
6
Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhthija v. Collector, Thane (AIR 1991 SC 1893) (India)
7
Hari Singh v. State Of Haryana, (1993) 3 SCC 114 (India)

11
 Team Code LLDC - 071

1. Issue 2: Whether trial of Veer by the Court in India, for the same charges that he had
already faced in Dubai, as that would amount to Double Jeopardy?

Argument: - Double jeopardy is a principle of natural justice. Petitioner has both

constitutional right under Article 20(2)8 and statutory right under section 300 of Cr.P.C.9,
where the code states about both the autrefois convict and autrefois acquit. Also, the Apex
court extends the right against Double Jeopardy to the foreign courts as well10. The meaning
of ‘Double Jeopardy’ as per the American Heritage Dictionary11 as, “The act of putting a
person through a second trial of an offense for which he or she has already been prosecuted
‘or’ convicted.”

Moreover, the State of Mind of the Respondent no. 5 is suspicious, it is important to mention
here that Respondent no. 5 is an influential government servant, serving as Central Excise,
Chandigarh, not a layman, who haven’t tried for Proceedings of Extradition Treaty between
the Government of the Republic of India and the United Arab Emirates 12. These acts and
conduct by respondent no. 5 clearly show that respondent no. 5 in corroboration with
respondent no. 4, have complete faith in the judicial system of Dubai (U.A.E.), as respondent
no. 5 itself registered the Police complaint against the petitioner in the Dubai police station; he
has complete freedom to initiate the proceedings in his choice of jurisdiction. These all
evidence clearly show the state of mind of the respondent no. 4 & 5, and these are relevant
evidence as per Section 14 Indian Evidence Act13. No cause of action arises after the acquittal
of the petitioner from the Dubai (U.A.E.) court in India, moreover in the present case the F.I.R.
No. 920/2019 has been registered after the acquittal of the petitioner and even after about a
year of the incident, which shows the ill intentions of respondent no. 4 i.e. Mother-in-law of
the petitioner.

Respondent no. 1 is itself involved in the proceedings of the Dubai Court, and they even
conjointly took part in the ‘inquiry’ along with the Dubai Police.

Even on a diplomatic front, without having any additional evidence, it will against the
principles of natural justice to try the present case again in India after acquittal in Dubai. As

8
India Const. art. 20 cl. 2
9
Code Crim. Proc. § 300
10
Monica Bedi v. State of AP, (2011) 1 SCC 284 (India)
11
Amrhttps://ahdictionary.com/
12
Extradition Treaty between the Government of the Republic of India and the United Arab Emirates, 2000,
Article 5, Published vide Notification No. G.S.R. 653(E), dated 20th July, 2000, Act 2480
13
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 § 14
12
 Team Code LLDC - 071

per the 6 test points mentioned in 13 C.P.C.14, it is crystal clear on a prima facie basis that the
parties to the present case are also involved in the judicial proceedings of Dubai (U.A.E.) Court
and they failed to present any evidence against the petitioner in any of the cases.

2. Issue 3: Whether Veer has committed the alleged offence punishable under Sections 363,
366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 5, 8 of the
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956?

Argument: Petitioner has not committed any of the alleged offence, because the petitioner has
already been acquitted by the Dubai (U.A.E.)’s court after being tried under the same offences,
i.e. Article 344, Penal Code of U.A.E.15 and also under Federal Law i.e. Combat Human
Trafficking16, punishable under the penal code of a Reciprocating Authority.

Section 366, of the Indian Penal Code,17 is ‘Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to
compel her marriage, etc’, whereas in the present matter the petitioner and Rohini is the legally
wedded husband and wife. There is no reason to compel Rohini, who is already a legally
wedded wife of the petitioner to undergo kidnapping and abduction. In Section 36718, under
which there is kidnapping for ‘Slavery’. This section is self-contradictory from the version of
respondents itself, as no one will reward the seller of a slave with a huge amount of 7000
Bitcoins. That’s why all the sections imposed on the petitioner is baseless, as the majority of
sections are concerned with trafficking with the purpose of slavery192021.

Any act of Human Trafficking as in the Immoral Trafficking Laws requires the recovery of the
Victim and also the consideration of money. The present matter lacks both of these elements,
as respondent no. 5 already knows about the 7000 Bitcoins, then also the respondent no. 1
didn’t involve the

Investigating authority i.e. Respondent No. 1 & 5 was part of the investigation and trial
proceedings held at Reciprocating Authority of Dubai (U.A.E.). It is evidentiary to mention
that the Witnesses from the hotel staff [Dubai (UAE)], that had seen the couple together. They
were examined and they testified that petitioner, Veer and his wife, Rohini looked like a couple

14
Code Civ. Proc. § 13
15
Criminal Penal Code of U.A.E. (Federal Law No. 3 of 1987)
16
Combat Human Trafficking, Federal Law No. 51 of 2007
17
Pen. Code. § 366
18
Pen. Code. § 367
19
Pen. Code. § 368
20
Pen. Code. § 370
21
Pen. Code. § 371
13
 Team Code LLDC - 071

very much in love. Petitioner’s wife had left to Dubai with her Consent and there was no
element of harassment, coercion, or undue influence on his wife, Rohini by the petitioner.
Dubai court acquitted the petitioner after trying the case on merits, looking on all the
circumstantial evidence, and after complete pieces of evidence, even when the respondent no.
1 & 4, 5 are involved in the proceedings in the foreign land.

They have a complete opportunity to produce any evidence and also to perform the Extradition
proceedings to transfer the case and the alleged person in India as per the Extradition Treaty
between the Government of the Republic of India and the United Arab Emirates22. In reality
both of the parents of the petitioner’s wife, Rohini, i.e. Respondent no. 4 & 5 are upset with
the love marriage of their daughter with the petitioner and the marriage is without their consent.
That’s why they want to maliciously prosecute the petitioner in false allegations.

There is a list of circumstantial evidence that shows the state of mind of the petitioner and is
thus completely relevant under section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act23.

Issues raised out of Criminal Writ Petition-2 (Veer Singhania v. U.T. Chandigarh &
Ors.): -

1. Issue 1: Whether alleged transaction through bitcoins and its exchange into Indian
currency is contrary to law in India?

Argument: Transaction through Bitcoins and its exchange into Indian Currency is not contrary
to the law in India. There are no laws regulating transactions through Bitcoins. Cryptocurrency
is not considered as currency under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 199924 (FEMA) and
therefore cryptocurrency or virtual currency VCs are neither foreign currency nor foreign
exchange. RBI has not notified Virtual Currency as currency and bitcoin buying, selling,
trading, or mining is not illegal by any law in India. None of the government instrumentalities
in India has declared that the cryptocurrencies are per se illegal.

22
Extradition Treaty between the Government of the Republic of India and the United Arab Emirates, 2000,
Article 5, Published vide Notification No. G.S.R. 653(E), dated 20th July, 2000, Act 2480
23
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 § 14
24
The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, § 2 (h), The Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, sec. 3(i),
1st June, 2000, vide notification No. G.S.R. 371(E), dated 1st May, 2000
14
 Team Code LLDC - 071

Issue 2: Whether Veer has committed the alleged offence punishable under Section 4 of
the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and Section 13 of the Foreign Exchange
Management Act, 1999?

Argument: It is important to note here that Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering
Act25, is the punishment for the offence defined under section 326 of the said act. It defines as
“Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a
party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime
and projecting it as untainted property shall be guilty of the offence of money-laundering.”27

The F.I.R. No.: 923/2019, as clubbed in the present petition has no prima facie evidence to
show that the alleged virtual currency is obtained from any illegal source because the
investigating authority i.e. respondent no. 1 has not charged the petitioner with the Money
Laundering Act, for obtaining the consideration and also Dubai’s (UAE) Court doesn’t
consider it as any illegal or untainted property.

It is important to note that, the investigating authority has made out irrelevant sections on the
innocent petitioner. First of them is the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, which
does not regulate cryptocurrency or virtual currency. 28According to Section 2 (h) “currency”
includes all currency notes, postal notes, postal orders, money orders, cheques, drafts,
travellers, cheques, letters of credit, bills of exchange and promissory notes, credit cards, or
such other similar instruments, but not the Virtual Currency i.e. Bitcoin as invented in 2009.
According to Coinage Act 201129, "coin" means any coin which is made of any metal or any
other material stamped by the Government or any other authority empowered by the
Government on this behalf and which is a legal tender including commemorative coin and
Government of India one rupee note. Explanation. –"For the removal of doubts, it is hereby
clarified that a "coin" does not include the credit card, debit card, postal order, and e-money
issued by any bank, post office, or financial institution”30

25
The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, § 4, The Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, 1st July,
2005, vide notification No. GSR 436(E), dated 1st July, 2005.
26
The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, § 3, The Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, 1st July,
2005, vide notification No. GSR 436(E), dated 1 st July, 2005.
27
The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, § 4, The Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, 1st July,
2005, vide notification No. GSR 436(E), dated 1 st July, 2005.
28
The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, § 2 (h), The Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, sec. 3(i), 1st
June, 2000, vide notification No. G.S.R. 371(E), dated 1st May, 2000
29
The Coinage Act, 2011, § 2, The Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, sec. 3 (ii), vide notification No. S.O.
628(E), dated 28th March, 2012
30
ibid
15
 Team Code LLDC - 071

So, Petitioner cannot be punished under section 13 of FEMA31 because FEMA does not
regulate it.

31
The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, § 13, The Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, sec. 3(i), 1st
June, 2000, vide notification No. G.S.R. 371(E), dated 1st May, 2000

16
 Team Code LLDC - 071

Arguments Advanced
Issues raised out of Criminal Writ Petition-1 (Veer Singhania v. U.T. Chandigarh &
Ors.): -

1. Issue 1: Whether a competent Court in India has jurisdiction to try the present case?
1.1. Whether the Central Government Sanction is needed in the present writ petition or
not?
Argument: - In Purushottam Das Dalmia v. State of West Bengal 32, the Supreme Court
held that “when the appellant was charged with offenses punishable under Sections 120-B,
466 and 47733, the appellant contended that offence of conspiracy was entered into at
Calcutta, the offences of using the forged documents was committed at Madras. Therefore,
the court at Calcutta had no jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 47134 read with
Section 46635 IPC, even though committed in pursuance of the conspiracy and course of the
same transaction. This Court held that the desirability of trying the offences of all the overt
acts committed in pursuance of a conspiracy together is obvious and sections 17736 and
23937 of the code leave no manner of doubt that the court which has the jurisdiction to try
the offence of criminal conspiracy has also the jurisdiction to try all the overt acts committed
in pursuance of it even though outside its territorial jurisdiction”38. Thus, the incident of
disappearance of the petitioner’s wife took place in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the
Indian Penal Code39 i.e. Dubai (U.A.E.).

1.2. Whether the present Hon’ble High Court has the right to quash the F.I.R.?
Argument: The Hon’ble High Court has complete jurisdiction under the extraordinary
powers granted to it by Article 226/22740 of the Indian Constitution. Also, as per the sec.
48241 of Code of Criminal Procedure, It is worth pointing out here as to what the Apex Court
has held in the case of Subramanium Sethuraman v. the State of Maharashtra42, that,

32
Purushottamdas Dalmia v. State Of West Bengal, 1962 2 SCR 101, (India)
33
Pen. Code.
34
Pen. Code. § 471
35
Pen. Code. § 466
36
Code Crim. Proc. § 177
37
Code Crim. Proc. § 239
38
Ajay Agarwal v. Union of India And Ors, 1993 AIR 1637, 1993 SCR (3) 543 (India)
39
Pen. Code.
40
India Const. art. 226 & India Const. art. 227
41
Code Crim. Proc. § 482
42
Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra, (2005 SCC (Crl) 242
17
 Team Code LLDC - 071

“The case involving a summons case is covered by Chapter XX of the Code43 which does
not contemplate a stage of discharge like Section 23944 which provides for a discharge in a
warrant case” Thus quashing of the F.I.R. No. 920/2019 that is based on false and bogus
facts, and after the acquittal of the petitioner from the other court of the foreign land; is
necessary on this stage because after framing of charge, it will not be in the ambit of the
Hon’ble court to quash the F.I.R. as per Subramanium Sethuraman (Supra)45. That’s why
if the present court will not quash the F.I.R., then the petitioner has to suffer from trauma
and mental agony again by undergoing the prosecution. This will not be in the interest of
justice.

Issues raised out of Criminal Writ Petition-2 (Veer Singhania v. U.T. Chandigarh &
Ors.): -

1. Advanced Issue 1: Are the P2P transactions, i.e. Peer to Peer transactions covered
under the RBI Regulations?
Argument: The P2P Transactions are meant by Peer-to-Peer Transactions, which is an
exchange system without any financial institution in between and has no control by the
Reserve Bank of India. This system is completely legal as it involves transactions between
two individuals who negotiate on some terms. In the case of Bitcoins, the transaction
between two individuals, through an intermediate platform in between such as CoinDesk,
etc. In this system, one exchanges the Crypto-currency from one demanding individual in
exchange for money. There is no foreign individual involved in any P2P transaction, as both
Rahamat Saeed and the petitioner are Indian Citizens. That’s why it doesn’t attract any
criminal proceedings under Money Laundering46 or FEMA47.
Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India, Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 528 of 2018, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 201848, in para 171 pointed out
as under:

43
Code Crim. Proc.
44
Code Crim. Proc. § 239
45
Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra, (2005 SCC (Crl) 242
46
The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, § 4, The Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, 1st July,
2005, vide notification No. GSR 436(E), dated 1 st July, 2005.
47
The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, § 13, The Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, 1st June,
2000, vide notification No. G.S.R. 371(E), dated 1st May, 2000
48
Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 528 of 2018,
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2018 (India)
18
 Team Code LLDC - 071

“In P2P transfers, while the exchange provides a portal to match the orders of a seller and
buyer, the consideration would flow directly from the buyer to the seller without the
exchanges being an intermediary for this leg of the trade. The exchanges would only act as
the intermediary for storing the VCs till the time the transfer of the consideration from the
buyer to the seller is complete. In other words, the exchanges act as an escrow agent for the
transaction between the buyer and the seller. The buyers in the P2P transaction transfer the
consideration directly to the seller’s bank account. In any case, the capital flight problem
mentioned by the petitioner is not new and existed even before the issuance of the Circular.”

2. Advanced Issue 2: Can Virtual Currency be considered as currency under the Money
Laundering Act?
Argument: The Apex Court in the case of Internet and Mobile Association of India v.
Reserve Bank of India, (Supra)49, in para 171 pointed out as under:
In “The position as on date is that VCs are not banned, but the trading in VCs and the
functioning of VC exchanges are sent to comatose by the impugned Circular by
disconnecting their lifeline namely, the interface with the regular banking sector. What is
worse is that this has been done
(i) despite RBI not finding anything wrong about the way in which these exchanges
function and
(ii) (ii) despite the fact that VCs are not banned.”50
RBI itself is not finding anything wrong in exchanges and functions under which the Virtual
Currency i.e. Cryptocurrency is working.
In the landmark judgment of Internet and Mobile Association of India V. Reserve Bank
of India (Supra)51, “the Union of India had already constituted an Inter-Ministerial
Committee on the same issue. It appears that the Committee so constituted, submitted a
report on 28-02-2019 indicating the action to be taken in relation to virtual currencies. A
bill known as the Banning of Cryptocurrency and Regulation of Official Digital Currency
Bill, 2019 had also been prepared by then to be introduced in the Lok Sabha. The contents
of the report of the Inter-Ministerial Committee dated 28-02-2019, can be well understood
only if we look at the Record of Discussions of the meetings of the Committee. The Record
of Discussions held on 27-11-2017 shows that the Inter-Ministerial Committee was of the

49
Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 528 of 2018,
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2018 (India)
50
Ibid
51
Ibid
19
 Team Code LLDC - 071

initial view that the banning option was difficult to implement and that it can also drive
some operators underground, encouraging the use of such currencies for illegitimate
purposes. But it was generally agreed in the said meeting that VCs cannot be treated as
currency.”52 Hence, we can easily conclude that Virtual Currency is not currency under the
Money Laundering Act53.

52
Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 528 of 2018, Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2018 (India)
53
The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, § 4, The Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, 1st July,
2005, vide notification No. GSR 436(E), dated 1 st July, 2005.
20
 Team Code LLDC - 071

PRAYER
Prayer for Clubbed Criminal Writ Petition (Veer Singhania v. U.T. Chandigarh & Ors.):

On the Basis of the case merits and as argued above the qua. Veer Singhania as the Petitioner
in Clubbed Criminal Writ Petition (Veer Singhania v. U.T. Chandigarh & Ors.) prays as below:

1. To exercise the powers of Hon’ble High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
F.I.R No. 920/2019 and 923/2019 registered by Chandigarh Police as well
as investigations initiated in pursuance thereof stand quashed.
2. Any other relief Hon'ble Court deems fit may grant accordingly in the interest of justice.

21