BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF DELTA , INDICA

IN THE MATTER OF :

Prabhas
Vijay …………………………………………………………….. PETITIONER

V.

STATE ………………………………………………………….. RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION (CRL ) NO . 124/2015

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELTA , INDICA

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA , 1950

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioners have approached the Hon‟ble High Court of Delta under Article 226 of the
Constitution of Indica, 1950.1

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 1. Prabhas was a successful graduate from an esteemed college of Delta State of Indica. Since college time,
Prabhas was an active social worker. After passing the college, Prabhas joined an NGO namely Safal to give
voluntary services to the downtrodden sect of the society along with his regular job at MNC of his city. The NGO
Safal, worked specially for the women and children in the rural and remote areas who are deprived of their rights
and privileges and who are unaware of the same. Being connected to the NGO, Prabhas was very active in
providing help to the women and children who were deprived of education, nutrition, also who were subjected to
inequality and crime.
2. There were many instances where the Safal with active participation of Prabhas had successfully inspired parents
of girl child to give them permission to carry on their education and sometimes Prabhas saved the married women
from domestic violence or sexual abuse and had ended up attaining justice for such victims.
3. After being associated for as long as 15 years with Safal, Prabhas became a prominent member of NGO and
was respected by the State Government for such a noble contribution to the society. At various conferences and
functions, Prabhas was awarded and acknowledged for his noble work which he did for women and girl child.
4. In the year 2020, he came across a girl, named ‘Gudia’, of 9 years of age in village Dalhousie, of Delta State,
whose parent’s complaint against an elementary school teacher ‘Vijay’ who demanded bribe from the said girl and
few more children of the said school for admissions. Also, Prabhas noticed numerous irregularities done by the
school administration, which violated the Government Order regarding collection of fees from the economically
downtrodden students.
5. Eventually, Prabhas filed a case against the said schoolteacher Vijay for demanding bribe from the students.
Later, Prabhas came to know that the same teacher had molested three girls including ‘Gudia’. The parent of other
girl child ‘Baby’, who was molested by the same teacher, had filed a complaint before the headmaster against sexual
assault of their girl child. But no action was taken by the school management against the said schoolteacher Vijay.
Thus, with the bonafide intention to pressurize the school authority, Prabhas posted the entire incident of sexual
assault done by the teacher along with details of the molested girls and the accused schoolteacher Vijay on
Facegood a social media platform. The post which Prabhas wrote gave details about the names, class, division,
school and address of the victim girls.
6. The Home Minister of Delta state took cognizance of the post of Prabhas and directed the Police authorities to
register a case against the accused schoolteacher under section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012.
7. Police in turn lodged an FIR against said schoolteacher Vijay under section 10 of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 at Police Station Dalhousie based on said post on Facegood.
8. The Child Welfare Committee (CWC) ordered registration of an F.I.R. against Prabhas for disclosing the identity
of the victim of child sexual abuse under section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012. According to Prabhas, he was unaware that all such minute details given in the post would attract Section 23
of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Later, after two days, noticing the details of the
victims available on a post he wrote, Prabhas deleted the

post from Facegood. But before Prabhas could delete the post, the CWC had already ordered for registration of
FIR. Consequently, Police Station Dalhousie registered a case under section 23 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against Prabhas.
9. The police are still investigating the case but Prabhas has filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of Indica before the Hon’ble High Court of Delta, challenging the registration of F.I.R. against him.

 The same is still pending; However, the Court granted an interim order that Prabhas be not arrested till
further order, while issuing notice to the State of Delta.
10. Aggrieved by the registration of FIR against him, School Teacher Vijay also filed a Writ Petition under Article
226 for quashing the FIR mainly on the ground that FIR cannot be lodged based on social media report. The High
Court of Delta admitted his petition and issued notice to the State of Delta. Now, the petition filed by Vijay is
listed for final hearing.

ISSUES RAISED

1) WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COURT IS

MAINTAINABLE.

2) WHETHER QUASHING OF FIR BE DONE ON THE BASIS OF SOCIAL MEDIA

REPORT UNDER SECTION 23 OF POCSO ACT

3) WHETHER TWO WRIT PETITIONS CAN BE CLUBBED TOGETHER

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1) WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COURT IS

MAINTAINABLE?

The Writ Petition made in furtherance to the Honorable High Court due to the juvenile board‟s
inability to decide a question of law is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
as: firstly, the jurisdiction of High Court can always be invoked; secondly, the Hon‟ble HC is well
within its rights to accept the writ petition on application from the petitioners and thirdly, existence
of Alternative Remedy is no bar to file petition.

2) WHETHER TWO WRIT PETITIONS CAN BE CLUBBED TOGETHER

Depends on the facts of the cases. If the Grievances of the petitions are co-associated with one another
the Hon’ble Chief Justice of High court will allow the case to a single judge to take up 2 distinct matters
under 2 different Laws along for better administration of justice..

3)WHETHER FIR SHOULD BE QUASHED OR NOT

3..1) WHETHER PETITIONER NO 2 IS LIABLE OF THE ACT HE IS ACCUSED OF




 Arguments from the side of Respondent

1) WHETHER FIR SHOULD BE QUASHED OR NOT

1.1) WHETHER PETITIONER NO 2 IS LIABLE OF THE ACT HE IS ACCUSED OF

1)It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that the FIR should not be quashed as
petitioner no 1 had an intention to defame Gudia . As per section 499 of Indian Penal Code
there are four essential elements to prove prima facie defamation

1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement

to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm
caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

We can clearly see that in case of petitioner 1 all the essential elements of defamation under
section 499 IPC are being fulfilled

II) It is humbly submitted before this Hon‟ble Court that petitioner no 1 was into social
work from past 15 years he had been working into an ngo since then so he shall be aware of
such a important fact that his post on social media can completely defame Gudia’s and her
family’s reputation . He had a long time grudge against school authorities which he put in
front of everyone by using social media.

Arguments from the side of Respondent

1) WHETHER FIR SHOULD BE QUASHED OR NOT

1.1) WHETHER PETITIONER NO 2 IS LIABLE OF THE ACT HE IS ACCUSED OF

1)It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that the FIR should not be quashed as
petitioner no 1 had an intention to defame Gudia . As per section 499 of Indian Penal Code
there are four essential elements to prove prima facie defamation

1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement

to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm
caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

We can clearly see that in case of petitioner 1 all the essential elements of defamation under
section 499 IPC are being fulfilled

 II) It is humbly submitted before this Hon‟ble Court that petitioner no 1 was into social
work from past 15 years he had been working into an ngo since then so he shall be aware of
such a important fact that his post on social media can completely defame Gudia’s and her
family’s reputation . He had a long time grudge against school authorities which he put in
front of everyone by using social media.

III) Also petitioner no 2 has done a heinous crime by harassing a nine year old girl , a school
is place where every child should feel the safest but my doing such a dirty crime he has
scared the girl for her entire lifetime .This led to mental distress for my client due to which
she’s not been able to grab any other opportunity left she is not able to come out of the
trauma she is scared of coming to school again . Her academics have suffered a lot due to it .
Her entire year is wasted. She doesn't feel like joining the school again . People around have
started seeing the family in a different manner. Everyone is showing sympathy which they
dont require .

II) WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COURT IS

MAINTAINABLE?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that It is not maintainable under article
226 as there are no reasonable grounds for filing writ petition . As the act of both the
petitioner amounts to a heinous crime with a small girl . The petitioner no 1 tends to
damage the reputation of the said girl by posting such a sensitive matter on social media . He
put her and her family’s reputation on stake . There fundamental rights have not been
hindered in any manner as they have violated section 23 of the pocso act and there was a
crime committed under section 23 of POCSO act .

The public post led to defamation of my client by revealing her identity. All 4 essential
elements of defamation were fulfilled by the petitioner. Hence, no fundamental right was
violated and a crime was committed .

The posts were posted on Facegood, a social media platform which itself explains the nature
and intention of putting up the posts was to show other people with malice intention and
there would be no freedom of expression exercised for the petitioner and he could not file
any writ petition on the basis of this.

The petitioner no 2 has created a big mark in Gudia’s life by threatening her forever .

 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:

. The writ petition filed shall not be maintainable,

. The FIR not be quashed .
.Strict punishment for both the petitioner .
.Justice for Gudia for damaging her reputation .

And pass any such order, other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and
Good Conscience.
And for this, the Petitioner as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.
COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT