1

CAMPUS LAW CENTRE, UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

MOOT COURT EXERCISE 2020-2021

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

ORDER XII, RULE 2(1), SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. OF 2020

(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

STATE OF UTTAR PRADEH AND MOOL CHAND ... APPELLANT

V.

BALDEV ...RESPONDENT

(UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

Submitted to: Dr.kshitij Singh

Submitted by: Akash Sachan
Class roll no. : 182069
Exam roll no. : 180058
 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF ABBREVIATION…............................................................................................. 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................ 5

● Case laws referred

● Legislation referred
● Lexicons
● Websites referred

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION… ............................................................................... 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................8

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ................................................................................................. 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .......................................................................................... 11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I..WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS

COURT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT? .............................................................................. 13
THE APPELLANT HAS THE LOCUS STANDI TO APPROACH THE
HONOURABLE SC
THE MATTER INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AND HENCE
ENTITLED TO BE MAINTAINABLE
II. WHETHER THE INSULT OVER TELEPHONIC CONVERSATION WITNESSED BY A
THIRD-PARTY CONSTITUTE AN OFFENCE UNDER S.3(1) r. & (s) of SCHEDULED
CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989? .........15
INTENTIONAL INSULT OF A MEMBER OF SC-ST COMMUNITY BY A NON-
MEMBER
INSULT WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THAT VICTIM BELONGS TO SUCH
COMMUNITY
 3

INSULT MADE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE THIRD PARTY CONSTITUTES AN

OFFENCE IN PUBLIC VIEW
III. WHETHER THE HIGH COURT WAS RIGHT IN QUASHING THE FRAMING OF
CHARGES? ........................................................................................................................... 17
PRESENCE OF A PRIMA FACIE CASE
PARAMETERS TAKEN IN ACCOUNT WHEN HIGH COURT ENTERTAIN A
PETITION FOR QUASHING OF CHARGE FRAMED
PRAYER… .............................................................................................................................20
 4

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

¶ Para
¶¶ Paras
AIR All India Reporter
Art. Article
Ano. Another
SC Scheduled Caste
ST Scheduled Tribe
SC/ST(POA) Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe ( Prevention Of Atrocity) Act
Cr. LJ Criminal Law Journal
Adm. Administration
HC High Court
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
Supp. Supplementary
UOI Union Of India
CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
Sec. Section
V. Versus
 5

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES REFERRED

1. Nihal Singh & Ors v. the State Of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26

2. Pawan Kumar v State of Haryana, (2003) 11 SCC 241 (SC).
3. C.C.E v Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 1298 SC 1298.
4. Janshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004)3 SCC 214 (SC).
5. Sadhu Singh v. Pepsu, AIR 1954 SC 271
6. Arunachalam v. P.S.R.SetharatnamAIR 1979 SC 1284.
7. Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat (1991) 4 SCC 406
8. Ganga Kumar srivastava v. State of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC 211.
9. Chunilal Mehta & Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd AIR 1962
SC 1314.
10. Dale & Carrington Investment Ltd. v. P.K. Prathapan (2005) 1 SCC 212.
11. Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra (1952) AIR 991.
12. Sripur Paper Mills v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (1970) AIR 1520.
13. C.C.E v Standard Motor Products, (1989) AIR 1298
14. Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169.
15. V.C Shukla v. State (Delhi ADM) AIR 1980 SC1382
16. Bhawana bai v. Ghanshyam (2020)2 SCC 217
17. State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh 1977 4SCC39
18. Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal,2000(1) SCC 722
19. Dinesh Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2014 13 SCC 137
20. Superintendent & Remembrances of legal v. Anil Kumar Bhunia (1979) 4SCC 274
21. Anoop Singh v. State, 2017 SCC del. 8333
22. The State of MP v. Mohanlal soni(2000) 6SCC 338
23. State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy (1977) 2SCC699
24. Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. The state of Gujarat and another, 714 of 2019
25. Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi) AIR2010 SC 1446
26. State of Maharashtra v. Salman Salim Khan and ors. AIR 2004 SC 1189
 6

27. Om wati v. State, through Delhi adm. (2001) 4SCC 333.

28. Swaran Singh & otr v. State through standing council & anr. (2008)8SCC435
29. Y.Vasudeva Rao &anr. V. State of A.P& and.2005 CriLJ 3774
30. Daya Bhatnagar and ors. V. State 109(2004) DLT 915
31. Pradeep Kumar v. State of Haryana and anr. CRP. No.1354 of 2019
32. State of A.P v. Gourishetty mansh and otr. (2010)11 SCC 226
33. E. Tirupem Reddy v. Deputy suptd. Of police, Nandyal 2006 Cr.Lj 1606(AP)

LEGISLATIONS REFERRED

1. The Constitution of India, 1950.

2. The Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribe(Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

LEXICONS

1. Black Law Dictionary, 6th Edition.

2. Stroud's judicial dictionary of words and phrases, 6th edition volume 3.

JOURNAL & ARTICLE REFERRED

1. International journal of law, Volume 4, Issue -I Jan. 2018

WEBSITES REFERRED

1. SCC Online, http://www.scconline.co.in

2. Manupatra online resources, http://www.manupatra.com
3. Indian case law (ICL) http://www.caselaw.in
4. Indian kanoon http://indiankanoon.org
 7

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

 The Appellant has approached the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India through SLP under
article 136 of the Constitution of India. The matter has been listed for hearing. Article
136 of the Constitution of India read here as under:

Article 136. 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 memorandum for Appellants in the matter of Mool Chand v. Baldev sets forth the
Facts, Contentions, and Arguments present in this case.
 8

STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon‘ble Court, the facts of the present case are
summarized as follows:

BACKGROUND

 Mool Chand (hereinafter referred to as the appellant ) and Baldev (hereinafter referred to
as the respondent) were residents of Rajpura town. Mool Chand was an elected ward
member of Ward No. 9 which is an elected body of a Municipality which was headed by a
chairperson named Baldev. The seat to which Mool Chand was elected was reserved for
Scheduled caste (SC). The head of the Municipality, Baldev belonged to the general
category.
 On December 4th, 2019 Baldev sent a message to Mool Chand through WhatsApp, inviting
him for a personal meeting in his chamber at 11 AM for discussion relating to cleanliness
in ward no. 9. Occupied with work Mool chand read the message at 11:30 AM and
immediately called Baldev to inform that he would reach shortly.

COMMISSION OF OFFENCE

 On receiving a call, Baldev started shouting at Mool Chand for getting late. He made
casteist remarks and humiliated him in the presence of a clerk in the chamber. Despite all
humiliation and insult, Mool Chand went to the Municipality to attend the meeting. The
moment Mool chand entered the chamber, Baldev got angry and abused him on the name
of his caste. Baldev shouted at Mool Chand saying "Get lost from my office, otherwise, I'll
make you clean the streets."
 Since Baldev was not listening to Mool Chand, he left the chamber and rushed to the police
station to register an FIR against Baldev.

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

Findings of the Trial Court:

 At the initial stage of the case, the Trial court found that a prima facie case had been made
out against Baldev.
 9

 On February 4th, 2020 the court framed charges under section 3(1)(r) and section 3(1)(s)
of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Findings of the High Court:

 The honorable court quashed the order of framing the charges on April 6, 2020.
 The appeal before the Supreme Court: The victim has now preferred an appeal.
 10

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS

COURT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

ISSUE II. WHETHER THE INSULT OVER TELEPHONIC CONVERSATION WITNESSED

BY A THIRD PARTY ATTRACT AN OFFENCE UNDER S.3(1)(r) & (s) OF SCHEDULED
CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE ( PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989?

ISSUE III. WHETHER THE HIGH COURT WAS RIGHT IN QUASHING THE FRAMING OF
CHARGES?
 11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. Whether the Special Leave Petition brought before this court is maintainable?
 Article 136 is very broad-based & confers discretion on the court to hear "in any cause or
matter", limited only by its discretion. SC has the power to interfere even with findings of
fact if the HC, in arriving at those findings, has acted "perversely" or otherwise improperly.
SC can allow an appeal under Article 136 if it involves a substantial question of law, issue
of public importance, or where rights of an individual have been infringed.
 It is humbly submitted before this Hon‘ble Court that grave injustice has been done and
the appeal is maintainable.

II. Whether the insult over telephonic conversation witnessed by a third party attracts an
offence under s. 3(1) (r ) & (s) of Scheduled caste & scheduled tribe (prevention of
atrocities) act, 1989?
 It is humbly submitted before the hon'ble court that insult over a telephonic call in the
presence of a third party attracts an offence under S. 3(1) (r )& (s) of SC-ST Act. For an
offence to be committed under the above-mentioned section, two criteria must be fulfilled
I.e intentional humiliation of a member of the SC/ST community and that insult should be
made in any place within public view. In our case the victim belongs to the SC community
which was in the knowledge of the respondent, casteist remarks, and humiliation was made
in the presence of a clerk i.e. a third party and such remarks were made twice which shows
the intention of the respondent hence offence made out.

III. Whether the HC was right in quashing the framing of charges?

 It is humbly submitted that at the stage of discharge or framing of charge i.e. S. 227&228
of CrPC, only a prima facie case has to be seen, whether the case is beyond a reasonable
doubt or not is to be seen at this stage and that is the matter of trial. While evaluating the
materials which provide sufficient ground against the accused, stringent standards of proof
are not required. It is only done to see if the ground presumed reasonably connects the
accused with the trial, nothing more is required to be inquired into at this stage but a trial.
 So, in the present case, all the ingredients for framing of charge are made out and hence
HC erred in quashing the order of framing of charge.
 12

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COURT IS

MAINTAINABLE

 It is humbly submitted before this Hon‘ble Court that the present Special Leave Petition
(hereinafter referred to as 'SLP') filed by Mool Chand (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant')
is maintainable in the Supreme Court [hereinafter as SC] under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India.

THE APPELLANT HAS THE LOCUS STANDI TO APPROACH THE HONOURABLE

SC

 Article 136 is very broad-based & confers discretion on the court to hear in any cause or
matter, limited only by its discretion. Article 136 is couched in the widest phraseology. 1
The jurisdiction conferred under article 136 on the SC is corrective & not a restrictive one.2
Article 136 is the residuary power of SC to do justice where the court is satisfied that there
is injustice3. This court would never do injustice nor allow injustice being perpetrated for
the sake of upholding technicalities4. Criminal appeals may be brought to the SC under
article 136 when these are not covered by Article 1345.
 In Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Setharatnam6, under Article 136 it was held: ―this court has
undoubted power to interfere even with findings of fact, making no distinction between
judgments of acquittal or conviction, if the HC, in arriving at those findings, has acted
―perversely or otherwise improperly. SC has held that under article 136 the Supreme
Court has wide power to interfere and correct the judgment and order passed by any court
or tribunal in India7. In Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar8 SC held that powers
of the SC in an appeal under Article 136 are not restricted by the appellate provisions

1 Nihal Singh & Ors v. State Of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26

2
Pawan Kumar v State of Haryana, (2003) 11 SCC 241 (SC)
3
C.C.E v Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 1298 SC 1298
4
Janshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004)3 SCC 214 (SC).
5
Sadhu Singh v. Pepsu, AIR 1954 SC 271
6
AIR 1979 SC 1284
7
Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat (1991) 4 SCC 406
8
(2005) 6 SCC 211
 13

contained in the CrPC or any other statute. The SC under article 136 of the Constitution
following principles emerge: (i) It is open to this Court to interfere with the findings of fact
given by the HC if the HC has acted perversely or otherwise improperly; (ii) It is open to
this Court to invoke the power under Article 136 only in very exceptional circumstances
as and when a question of law of general public importance arises or a decision shocks the
conscience of the Court; (iii) When the evidence adduced by the prosecution fell short of
the test of reliability & acceptability and as such it is highly unsafe to act upon it; (iv)
Where the appreciation of evidence and finding is vitiated by any error of law of procedure
or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of record & misreading of the
evidence, or where the conclusions of the HC are manifestly perverse & unsupportable
from the evidence on record.
 In the present case, the appellant has locus standi to approach the Hon‘ble SC.

THE MATTER INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AND HENCE

ENTITLED TO BE MAINTAINABLE

 SC in Chunilal Mehta & Sons case9 held-The proper test for determining whether a
question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of
general public importance or whether it directly & substantially affects the rights of the
parties & if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled
by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty
or calls for discussion of alternative views. Where findings are entered without considering
relevant materials and without following proper legal procedure, the interference of the SC
is called for10. The SC is not precluded from going into the question of facts under article
136 if it considers it necessary to do so11. It is, plain that when the Supreme Court concludes
that a person has been dealt with arbitrarily or that a court or tribunal has not given a fair
deal to a litigant, then no technical hurdles of any kind like the finality of the finding of
facts, or otherwise can stand in the way of the exercise of this power12. When a question of
law of general public importance arises, or a decision shocks the conscience of the court,

9 Chunilal Mehta & Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd AIR 1962 SC 1314
10 Dale & Carrington Investment Ltd. v. P.K. Prathapan (2005) 1 SCC 212
11 Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra (1952) AIR 991
12 Sripur Paper Mills v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (1970) AIR 1520
 14

its jurisdiction can always be invoked13. The present facts in the issue satisfy all of the
above-mentioned criteria. Assuming that the case doesn‘t involve a 'substantial‘ question
of law, SC in the exercise of its power conferred under article 136 can entertain the present
appeal. Article 136 uses the wording in any cause or matter14. This gives the widest power
to this court to deal with any cause or matter, even if it involves the question of fact.

13 C.C.E v Standard Motor Products, (1989) AIR 1298

14 Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169
 15

II. WHETHER THE INSULT OVER TELEPHONIC CONVERSATION WITNESSED

BY A THIRD PARTY ATTRACT AN OFFENCE UNDER S.3(1)(r) & (s) OF
SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE ( PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
ACT, 1989?

 It is humbly submitted before the hon'ble court that offence under s. 3(1) (r.) &( s.) of
Prevention of Atrocities Act is committed here by fulfilling all the ingredients required to
commit an offence under this provision.
 Section 3. (1) r. & s. If scheduled caste and scheduled tribe read as :
Punishment for offences of atrocities: whoever, not being a member of a scheduled caste and
tribe-
(r ) intentionally insults or intimidate with intent to humiliate a member of a scheduled caste or a
scheduled tribe in any place within public view;
(s) abused any member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe by caste name in any place within
public view;
 The law referred to the meaning of the words "public" & " view" as explained in Black's
law dictionary, Stroud's judicial dictionary of words and phrases and observed that the
expression "public view" doesn't necessarily mean that a large number of persons should
be present to constitute public; and that even when one or two members of the public hear
and view the offending words being used, the offense would be made out, provided other
ingredients of the section are satisfied.
 In Daya Bhatnagar and ors. V. State15 the ingredients for the offence was discussed as,
(a) intentional insult or intimidation by a person, not a member of the SC ST community.
(b) insult must be with an intent to humiliate and had prior knowledge/ awareness of the victim's
community
(c ) the incident must occur in any place within the public view.

15
109(2004)DLT 915
 16

Intentional insult of a person by a person, not a member if SC-ST community

 In our case Intention to humiliate16 is made out from the fact that the respondent humiliated
twice. when appellant called to inform his late arrival, respondent made casteist remarks
and humiliated him in the presence of a clerk i.e. a third party and despite all when appellant
reached the office, respondent made insulting remarks and abused him again fulfilling one
of the key ingredients of the offence.

Insult with the knowledge of that victim's belong to such community

 In our case the appellant was elected to the post of ward member and was reserved for
scheduled caste. This shows that the community17 of the appellant was already known to
the respondent due to association, hence other ingredients of the offence made out.

The incident must occur in any place within the public view

 In the recent judgment in Pradeep Kumar v. State if haryana18, facts similar to the one
in the hand it can be construed that to constitute an offence u/s 3(1) (r ) & (s) of SC-ST
(POR) Act, if the alleged conversation over the phone was witnessed by any third party, it
can be considered under public view.
 In the present case, casteist remarks over the phone were witnessed by a third party hence,
satisfies the criteria of an offence under above- mentioned section.
 In Y. Vasudeva Rao19 it was discussed that the phrase "in a place within public view" may
be taken as a place where ordinarily public visit for some purpose, it can be govt. Office,
market, a place of public entertainment where the people are expected to go and are invited
is a place within the public view.
 Thus, the Allahabad HC was incorrect in not considering the casteist aspersions on phone as
offence, giving reasoning the lack of public view and didn't consider the presence of other
ingredients of offence. Insult made in the name of caste is a violation of A.21 of the
Constitution of India. No people or community should be treated as being inferior and nobody's

16
supra 15
17
supra 15
18
CPR N. 1354 of 2019
19
2005 CriLJ 3774
 17

feelings should be hurt20. Whether the words were uttered in a public view or not is a question
of fact that will have to be decided during the trial hence, the trial should be allowed21 keeping
in mind the reason for this civil right act at the first place is backed by the provisions of
constitution of India and the narrow interpretation of the provisions of aforementioned act
defeats the spirit of constitution of India.

III. WHETHER THE HIGH COURT WAS RIGHT IN QUASHING THE FRAMING
OF CHARGES?
 It is humbly submitted that the High Court erred in quashing the order of framing of charges
made by the trial court by holding that the casteist remarks made on a telephone call in the
absence of a third person don't constitute an offence within the meaning of S.3(1) r. &
S.3(1) s. Of the act by overlooking the presence of a witness and other ingredients of the
offence.
 On perusal of S. 227 & S. 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it is clear that for the purpose
of charge judge has to see if upon consideration of documents and hearing of the
submission of accused and prosecution if there is no sufficient ground then the accused is
discharged by giving the reasons22, but if there is a ground for the presumption that the
accused has committed an offence, the framing of charge gives intimation to the accused
of clear, unambiguous and precise notice of the accusation that the accused is called upon
to meet in the course of trial as hold in V.C Shukla case23.

Presence of a prima facie case:

 In Bhawana bai v. Ghanshyam24 it was held that at the time of framing of the charges
only prima facie cases are to be seen, whether the case is beyond a reasonable doubt is not
to be seen at this stage which was ironically done in the present case by Allahabad High
Court by overlooking prima facie case at the stage of framing of charges. In 1977's Ramesh

20
Swaran Singh & otr. V. State, (2008)8SCC435
21
E.Tirupem Reddy v. deputy suptd. Of police, Nandyal 2006 cr. LJ 1606(AP)

22
Sec. 227 of CrPC
23
AIR 1980 SC1382
24
(2020)2 SCC 217
 18

Singh case25 court said that the presumption of guilt of the accused which is mentioned in
S.228 is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France, where
the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved, but it is only to decide
a prima facie whether the court should proceed with the trial or not.
 On a plain reading of A.227 it is clear that for discharging an accused, the court has to give
reasons but for framing of charges u/s. 228, the judge is not required to record detailed
reasons26 as to why such a charge is framed27.
 At this stage the truth, veracity and the effect of the evidence which the prosecution
proposed to adduce are not meticulously judged28 nor is any weight to be attached to the
probable defence of the accused, thus court in Anoop Singh case29 held that a "mini-
trial" is not to be conducted.

 In the State of M.P v. Mohanlal Soni30, the apex court has already clarified the judicial
view that at the stage of framing if charges the court has to prima facie consider whether
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, only the court has to see
whether the material brought on record could reasonably connect the accused with a trial,
nothing more is required to be inquired into 31. A strong suspicion suffices. However, a
strong suspicion must be founded on some material32 which in our case was the occurrence
of the offence in presence of a witness and meeting other criteria of the offence.
 Thus, the trial court was right to find out that there is a basis for 'presuming' that the accused
has committed an offence and not to conclude that it is not likely to lead to a conviction33.

25
19774SCC39

26
Kanti Bhadra shah v. State id west Bengal , 2000(1)SCC722
27
Dinesh Tiwari v. State of U.P 2014 13 SCC137
28
supretendent & remembrances of legal v Anil kr. bhunjal(1979)4SCC 274
29
2017 SCC del.8333
30
(2000) 6 SCC 338
31
State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy(1977) 2SCC699
32
Dipakbhai jagdishchandra patel v. The state of Gujarat and anr., 714 of 2019
33
chitresh kr. Chopra v. State (govt. Of NCTof Delhi ) AIR 2010 SC 1446
 19

Parameters taken into account when High court entertain a petition for quashing of
framing of charges:

 In the State of Maharashtra v. Salman Salim Khan 34, apex court opined that though it
is open to a High Court entertaining a petition under sec. 482 of the code to quash charges
framed by the trial court, the same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or
sufficiency of the evidence. In a case praying for quashing of the charge, the principle to
be adopted by the High Court should be that if the entire evidence produced by the
prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an offence or not. The truthfulness,
sufficiency, and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of charge can
be done only at the stage of the trial.
 The Allahabad HC diverged from this principle given by the supreme court and failed to
acknowledge the prima facie case.
 The reasoning behind such a principle is to stop the unscrupulous litigation which aims to
protect the trial under the cloak of technicalities of law35. The quashing of charges is an
exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly
satisfied, the court should be more inclined to permit the continuation of prosecution rather
than it's quashing at the initial stage36. Though the court in Gaourishetty Case37 said that
the power under S.482 of CrPC is wide but has to be exercised with great care and caution.

 Hence, it is clear from the cited authority that at the time of framing of charge only a prima
facie case has to be seen and evidence is not appreciated at the stage of framing the charge.
The ground for the presumption of an offence under section 3(1)r. & s. SC/ST Act cannot
be ignored under the cloak of technicalities of law.

34
AIR 2004 SC 1189

35
Omwati v. State, Delhi adm. (2001)4SCC333
36
2017 SCC del.8333
37
(2010) 11 SCC 226
 20

PRAYER

Therefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly
submitted that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to hold, adjudge, and find that:

1. Grant the appeal filed by the Appellant.

2. Dismiss the High court order of quashing the framing of charges and upheld the trial court
order.
3. Hold that offences under section 3(1) (r) & (s) have been committed.

AND/ OR

Pass any other order or any other relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of
Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience.

All of which is humbly prayed.

PLACE : S/D
DATE: (COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT )