CAMPUS LAW CENTRE

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIA
CAMPUS LAW CENTRE
Special Leave to Appeal
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
U/A – 136
Special Leave to Appeal
U/A OF

OF
CONSTITUTION OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF :
IN THE MATTER OF :
MOOL CHAND .................................................................................... APPELLANT

BALDEV VERSUS ……APPELLANT

BALDEV AND Anr ................................................................................ RESPONDENT

VERSUS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

STATE ……RESPONDENT
Submitted To : Submitted By :
Dr. Rohit Moonka Amaan Malik(21309806105)
Mohd.RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE Sehazad Khan(21309806536)
Section-B

Submitted To:- Submitted

By :-

Jai Prakash Meena Abhilasha

Class Roll.No. :
182042

Exam Roll No. :

180018
1|Page
Section – A
 Table of Contents

Content Page No.

List of

Abbrevation………………………………………………3

Index of Authorities ............................................... 4

Statement of

Jurisdiction……………………………………………. 6

Statement of

Facts…………………………………………………… 7

Statement of

Issues…………………………………………………… 8

Summary of

Arguments .................. . ..... ................ .... 9

Arguments

Advanced…………………………………………. 10

Prayer……………………………………………… 20

2|Page
 LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

ABBREVATION ACTUAL TERM

Hon’ble Honourable

A. Article

S. Section

Anr Another

Ors. Others

v. Versus

SC Schedule Castes

ST Schedule Tribes

CrPC Criminal Procedure Code

& And

AIR All India Report

U/S Under Section

SLP Special Leave Petition

U/A Under Article

Pvt. Ltd Private Limited

3|Page
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1) LIST OF STATUES REFERRED

i) The Constitution of India, 1950

ii) The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989

iii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

2) LIST OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS

1. Omvati V. Sate (Delhi Admn.), (2001) 4SCC 38

2. Tirpati Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd. V. State of Bihar AIR 2004 SC 2351

3. M.C. Mehta V. UOI AIR 2004 SC 4618

4. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. V. Ravinder kumar Suri AIR 2005 SC 15

5. Jamshed Hormusji Wadai V. Board of Trustee, Port of Mumbai AIR 2004SC

1815

6. Kunhayammed V. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SC 539

7. Chikkappa & Ors. V. State By Sub- Inspector of Police 2002 Cr.L.J 518

8. Y.Vasudeva Rao & Anr. V. State of A.P 2005 CR.L.J 3774

9. Mahesh Sakharam Patole V. The State of Maharashtra Criminal

appeal1318 of 2009 in Bombay Court

10. Alka A. Mishra V. State of Jharkhand & Anr. 2003 Cr.L.J 1333

4|Page
 11. Pardeep Kumar V. State of Jharkhand & Anr. CSR No. 1354 of 2019

12. Ashim Kumar Chatterjee V. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

13. Gorige pentaiah V. State on Andhra Pradesh 2008 Cr.L.J. 350 SC

14. State of Haryana V. Bhajanlal AIR 1992 SC 604

15. K.Neelavani V. State Rep BY Insp. Of Police & Ors SLP (Cr.L) 3562
OF2009

16. Dr. Sharada Prasad Sinha V. State of Bihar 1977 AIR 1754, SCR(2) 357

17. Kamla Kant Singh V. Chairman, Benetta Colman & Co.Ltd., Cr.R. 667 Of 1985

18. Director of Public Prosecution V. Ottewell (1970) A.C. 642

3) ARTICLES REFERRED

i) Dr. Ashok kumar Makkar, “Atrocities within ‘public view’ under SC/ST (prevention
of atrocities ) act : A Critical analysis” 4 International Journal of Law 10-14 (2018)

4) WEB SOURCES REFERRED

i) http://www.scconline.com

ii) http://www.manupatrafast.com

iii) http://www.indiankanoon.com

5|Page
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court is being filed by the petitioner under the
provision that corresponds to Article- 136 of The Constitution of India, 1950. The respondent
respectfully submitted to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court .

The Article invoked are reproduced hereunder :-

A-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 byany court or tribunal in the territory of
India
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence ororder
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the
Armed Forces.

6|Page
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Mool Chand ( Appellant ) was elected as a ward Member of Ward No. 9 Rajpura
town to the seat which is reserved is reserved for Schedule Caste and he also belong to
Schedule Caste . The body was chaired by Baldev (Respondent) whobelong to General
Categoy.

2. On December 4,2019 Baldev sent him a WhatsApp message to invite him for a personal
meeting in his chamber at 11:30 AM. Mool Chand was busy that day and,therefore , he
read the message at 11:30 AM.

3. He immediately called Baldev to inform that he would reach shortly. Baldev startedshouting
at him for getting late and made casteist remarks humiliated him, at that timea clerk was
sitting in the chamber . When Mool Chand went to the Municipality to attend the meeting.
Baldev got angry and abused him on the name of his caste in his chamber. At that time there
was no 3rd person inside the chamber.

4. Mool Chand left the chamber and rushed to the police Station to register an FIR against
Baldev.

5. At the initial stage of the case , the trial court found that a prima facie case hadbeen
made out against Baldev . Therefore On February 4,2020 , the court framed charges U/S-
3 (1)(r) & (s) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989.

6. Baldev challenged the order of framing of charges before the Allahabad High Court

. High Court held that the casteist aspersions made telephonically or in the absence of a 3rd
party did not constitute an offence within the meaning of S-3(1)(r) & (s) of theAct, because the
alleged remarks were not made “at a place within public view” as required under these
provision. The court also said that the Act is penal statute which must be strictly construed.
On April 4, 2020 High Court quashed the order of framing of charges. The Court also denied
to provide the certificate to appeal before the Supreme Court U/A-134A of the Constitution of
India.

7. Aggrieved by the Order of High Court , Mool Chand filed Special Leave Petition U/A-136 of
The Constitution of India and same was admitted for hearing by the court.

STATEMENTS OF ISSUES
7|Page
 ISSUES :-

1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION U/S -136 OF

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950 IS MAINTABLE OR NOT
BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT.

2. WHETHER THE OFFENCE UNDER S- 3(1) (r) & (s) OF

SC OR ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITY ACT,1988) HAVE
BEEN COMMITTED.

3. WHETHER HIGH COURT IS JUSTIFIED TO PASS AN

ORDER FOR QUASHING THE FRAMING OF CHARGE
FRAMED BY TRIAL COURT IS CORRECT.

8|Page
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE: 1 WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION U/S -136 OF

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950 IS MAINTABLE OR NOT BEFORE
THIS HON’BLE COURT.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Special Leave Petition filedU/A -
136 of the constitution of india,1950 is not maintainable as their is no “exceptional and
special circumstances exist” or “substantial and grave injustice” has been done. . It is
discretionary power vested in the Supreme Court of India and the court may in its discretion
refuse to grant leave to appeal. The aggrieved party can not claim Special Leave Appeal
under A-136 as a right but it is privilege vested in the Supreme Court of India to grant leave to
appeal or not.

ISSUE : 2 WHETHER THE OFFENCES UNDER S-3 (1) (r ) & (s) OF THE
SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBE (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES ) ACT, 1989 HAVE BEEN COMMITTED.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the offence U/S- 3(1)(r ) & (s) of the SC
and ST (Prevention of atrocities) Act ,1989 have not been committed by the respondent against
the petitioner as the essential ingredients of this section are not fulfilled. To constitute this
offence , accused must know that the victim belong to SC/ST Caste, accused must intentionally
insult, intimate & humiliate him/her at a place within a public view. If no member of the public
has either seen the incident or heard the remarks, then even if the place is a ‘public place’ or a
place ‘visible to public’ , it would not attract the ingredients U/S-3(1)(r) & (s) of the Act.

9|Page
 ISSUE :3 WHETHER HIGH COURT IS JUSTIFIED TO PASS AN ORDER
FOR QUASHING THE FRAMING OF CHARGE FRAMED BY TRIAL
COURT.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the order of High Court for qashing the
framing of charges Framed by trial is justified . At the stage of framing of charges , judge
needs to be only convinced that there is a prime facie case, wherethere is no necessity to
adduce reasons for framing of charges1. . In this case, Offence U/S-3(1)(r) & (s) have not
been committed as the necessary ingredients of the offence have not made out by the act of the
respondent against the petitioner

1
Omvati V. Sate (Delhi Admn.), (2001) 4SCC

10 | P a g e
 ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

ISSUE: 1 WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION U/S -136 OF

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950 IS MAINTABLE OR NOT BEFORE
THIS HON’BLE COURT.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Special Leave Petition filedU/A -
136 of the constitution of india,1950 is not maintainable as their is no “exceptional and
special circumstances exist” or “substantial and grave injustice” have done to maintain this
SLP. It is discretionary power vested in the Supreme Court of India and the court may in its
discretion refuse to grant leave to appeal. The aggrieved party can not claim Special Leave
Appeal under A-136 as a right but it is privilege vested in the Supreme Court of India to grant
leave to appeal or not.

2
In Tirpati Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd. V. State of Bihar

Court observed that A-136 is an ‘extraordinary jurisdiction’ vested by the Constitution in the
Supreme Court with implicit trust and faith, & extraordinary care and caution has to be
observed in the exercise of this jurisdiction. A-136 does not confer a right of appeal to the
party but vests a discretion in the Supreme Court meant to be exercised on the considerations
of justice, call of duty and eradicating injustice

2
Tirpati Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd. V. State of Bihar AIR 2004 SC 2351
11 | P a g e
 In M.C. Mehta V. Union of India3 and Aero Traders Private Limited V. Ravider
Kumar Suri 4, it was held that U/A-136 should be exercised with caution and in accordance
with law and set legal principles. The court observed that the court is not bound to interfere
even if there is error in law in the impugned order.It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble
Court that there was error in the judgmentof the allahab High Court in quashing the order of
framing of charges made by trial court as there was no offence has been committed . It is
also submitted to this Hon’ble Court that there is no pressing matter or question of law, for
which, the intervention of this Court would be necessary , i.e. there is no necessity to invoke
the jurisdiction conferred upon thishon’ble Court U/A-136 . Even if it might involve question
of law but not ‘Substantial” question of law. The present case does not involve such
‘Substantial’ question even if we assume that it involves question of law.

Jamshed Hormusji Wadia V. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai5

The power is permitted to be invoked not in a routine fashion but in very exceptional
circumstances as when a question of law of general public importance arises . This overriding
and exceptional power has been vested in the Supreme Court to be exercised sparingly and
only in furtherance of the cause of justice in the Supreme Court in exceptional cases only when
special circumstances are shown to exist.

Kunhayammed V. State of Kerala 6 ,it was held that court may reject the SLP of petitioner
for several reasons.The question raised by the appellant for considerationby this court being
not fit for consideration or deserving being dealt with the Apex Court, it is humbly submitted
that their is no ground for invoking this Hon’ble Court jurisdiction U/A- 136 of Constitution
of India,1950.

3
AIR 2004 SC 4618
4
AIR 2005 SC 15
5
AIR 2004 SC 1815
)
6 (2000) 6 SCC 359
12 | P a g e
 In light of the plethora of cases cited, present SLP will not be maintable as thereis no prima
facie case is made out as essential ingredients of S-3(1)(r) & (s) of theSC and ST (Prevention of
Atrocities ) Act, 1889 were not fulfilled as offence is not committed within the public view.

ISSUE : 2 WHETHER THE OFFENCES UNDER S-3 (1) (r ) & (s) OF THE
SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBE (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITY) ACT, 1989 HAVE BEEN COMMITTED.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the offence U/S- 3(1)(r ) & (s) of the SC
and ST (Prevention of atrocity) Act ,1989 have not been committed by the respondent against
the petitioner as the essential ingredients of this section are not fullfilled.

Chikkappa & Ors. V. State By Sub-Inspector of Police (2001)7

Court held that it must be prima facie shown that the accused is not a member of SCor ST and
his humiliation by way of intentionally insult or intimidation was conductedin a place within
public view. If essential ingredients of S-3(1)(x) are not fulfilled , then there is no an offence
U/S-3(1)(x) of the Act have been committed.

3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.—

(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,—

section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) read as follows:

Punishments for offences atrocities : Whoever,not being a member of a Scheduled Caste

…..

Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe in any place within public view;

7
2002 Cr.L.J 518

13 | P a g e
Abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in
any place within public view;

Essential Ingredients of S-3(r ) :-

1) There should be intentional insult or intimidation by a person, who is not a

member of SC or ST.

2) The insult must be with an intent to humiliate the member of SC or ST. As the intent to
humiliate is necessary, it follows that the accused must have knowledge orawareness that the
victim belongs to the SC or ST.This can be inferred even from long association.

3) The incident must occur in any place within the public view.There can’t be any dispute
that the offence can be committed at any place whether it is a private placeor a “pulic view’
as long as it is within the “public view” .The requirement of “public view” can be satisfied
even in a private place, where the public is present.

PUBLIC VIEW

Public view means the public is able to witness the offence committed under this act.The
dictionary meaning of the word “public” is “open to the people as a whole”. The dictionary
meaning of the word “view” is vision or sight as from a particular position.Reading these
two meanings together in the context of the words “public view”, it only means that the public
should have viewed the incident irrespective of the place where the offence is committed ,it
may be private place or public place
8
Y.Vasudeva Rao & Anr. V. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Court held that the phrase 'in a place within the public view' may be taken as a place where
ordinarily the public visit for some purpose or other than with uninterrupted regularity
though not continuously. Any place where a Government office is located, any market, a place
of public entertainment and the like, where people are expected to go and are invited is a
place 'within the public view.' An office or an office room

8
2005 Cri.L.J 3774

14 | P a g e
 where the head of the office sits is also a place within the public view but the privateante
chamber of such officer cannot be treated as a place within the public view because except the
personal servants of the officer, nobody can enter the private chambers.

9
In Mahesh Sakharam Patole V. The State of Maharashtra

The expression “within public view” will have to read to mean that the offence U/S- 3(1) (x) of
the Act, should take place in view of the “public”.If no members of the public has either seen
the incident or heard the remarks, then even if the place is a “Public place” or a place
“visible to the public”, it would not attract the ingredients of the offence U/S- 3(1)(x) of the
Act.
10
In Alka A. Mishra V. J.P. Shoke

Court held that to constitute an offence insult or intimidation has been done in aplace within
public view, but when the things had transpired in an office of a company.There was no
material to show that the offence was visible to public atlarge, hence no offence U/A – 3(1)(x)
was made out.

In Pardeep Kumar V. State of Haryana & Anr.11

It was held that the use of casteist words a phone call , away from public view, does not
constitute an offence under S- 3(1)(r) & (s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities
) Act, 1989.

In light of the plethora of cases cited, in the present case two acts were when the respondent
make the castiest remarks against the telephonic call, when a clerk was sitting in the chamber
and the second instances was the respondent abusing the appellant on the name of his caste
and saying “get lost from my office, otherwise I will make you clean the streets”. At the time,
there was no 3rd person inside the chamber. For the shake of Convience the 2nd instances shall
be examined first. In the2nd act, the words uttered were in no way casteiest remark of abuses
because the words “I will make you clean the streets” were not made in reference to the
caste of the appellant rather were made us the meeting was called to discuss issues

9
Criminal appeal 1318 of 2009 in Bombay Court
10
2003 Cr.L.J 1333
11
CSR No. 1354 of 2019

15 | P a g e
 regarding cleanliness in the ward of the appellant which the appellant did not attend.There
fore in light of the failure of the appellant to attend the meeting, the respondent used the
words referring to the state of cleanliness in the respondent wards out of sheer anger and
discontent with appellant behaviour. It is also submitted that while the 2nd act was eing
committed, their was no 3rd party in the room . In the case , there was no public view as the
act was not witnesses in any form by any 3rd party or public. Therefore the offence has not
been made out.

In the first instance of Telephonic call, it is the case that there was no “public view”as the
conversation was made on a phone call even if casteist remark were made does not
constitute public view and the absence or presence of 3rd party is major question that needs
to be dealt upon. The mere presence of clerk in the chamber ofthe respondent does not
constitute the presence of public view as it is clear after perusing the abundance of
judgements available including the case of Asmathunnisa relying upon which it is very
evident that the public must view the person being insulted for which he must be present. In
the present case, the appellant was not present in the place for the public to view him being
insulted.
Therefore any remarks, if made on a telephonic call can’t be said to be construed to be made
in public view and therefore no offence has been made out as the essentialingredients of the
offence have not been fulfilled for the respondent to be prosecuted.

ISSUE :3 WHETHER HIGH COURT IS JUSTIFIED TO PASS AN ORDER

FOR QUASHING THE FRAMING OF CHARGE FRAMED BY TRIAL
COURT.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Order of Allahabad High Court
was justified as casteist aspersions made telephonically or in the absence of a third person
did not constitute an offence within the meaning of S-3(1)(r) & (s) of the Act, because the
alleged remarks were not made “at a place within public view’

as required under these provision. State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal 12

When High Court use his Inherent Power :-

16 | P a g e
 • In exceptional cases

• Absence of any provision

• If no prima facie case made

S-482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court :Nothing in this Code shall be deemed
to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such ordersas may be
necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuseof the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice482. Saving of inherent powers of High
Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the
High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this
Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice

S-227. Discharge : If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents
submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accusedand the prosecution in
this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficientground for proceeding against the
accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing

S-228. Framing of charge.

(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion thatthere is
ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which-

(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the
accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and
thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance withthe procedure
for the trial of warrant- cases instituted on a police report;

(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.

12
AIR 1992 SC 604

17 | P a g e
 (2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub- section (1), the charge
shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he
pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.

13
K.Neelaveni V. State Rep.By Insp. Of Police & Ors

It was held that when a report is submitted to the magistrate he is required to be prima facie
satisfied that the facts disclosed therein constitute an offence..Magistrate is not bound by the
coclusion of the investigation agency in thepolice report i.e. in the charge sheet and it is open
to him after exercise of judicial discretion to take the view that facts disclosed in the report
don’t constitute any offence for taking cognizence.

In the present case, high court was justified to pass an order under S-482 Cr.P.C, 1973

14
Dr. Sharda Prasad Sinha V. State of Bihar

It was held by the Supreme Court that “ Now it is settled law that where the allegations set out
in the complaint or the charge- sheet do not constitute any offence, it is competent to the High
Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction under S-482 Cr.P.C to quash the order passed by the
magistrate taking congizance of the offence”.

In the present case, offence was not committed in any place with in the public view. So, the
essential ingredients are not satisfied.

15
Gorige Pentaiah V. State of Andhra Pradesh

It was held by this honourable court that “When the basic ingredients of the offenceare missing
in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to
face the rigmarole of the criminal trail would be totally

13
SLP (Cr.L) 3562 OF 2009
14
1977 AIR 1754, SCR (2) 357
15
2008 Cr.L.J. 350 SC

18 | P a g e
 unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.

In the present case Allahbad High Court pass an order for quashing the feaming of charges is
correct because essential ingredients to constitute an offence is not fulfilled as offence was not
committed “with in the public view”.

Kamla Kant Singh V. Chairman /Managing Director, Bennetta Colman and

Co.Ltd.16

Court observed that, “ In order to interpret S-292 to 294, 295-A and 298 of INDIAN PENAL
CODE, 1860 or any other penal statute the principle applicable is that the Penal, Statute
must be strictly construed in favour of the subject. But not beyond theliteral and obvious
meaning in a particular statute . It is better to quote an observation from Statutory
Interpretation by sir Rupert Cross as follows:

Strict Construction of Penal Statutes : the phrase penal statute is used to cover bothstatutes
creating a crime and those providing for the recovery of penalty in civil proceedings . In
either case the present position is that if to use the words of Lords Reid in Director of public
Prosecution V. Ottewell17 at page 649. After full enquiry and consideration, one is left
in real doubt. It is enough for the provision under construction to be ambiguous in the sense
that it is capable of having two meaning.

In the present case, the decision of Allahabad High Court was justified because

• Ingredients of the offence have not been fulfilled as explained above,

• Prima facie case is not made out

In light of the plethora of cases cited, the order of High Court for qashing the framingof
charges was justified as ingredients of the offence have not been fulfilled as explained above,
hence the framing of charges should be quashed relying upon the above mentioned
precedents which establish that a prima facie case has to be made
.

As all the essential ingredients of the offence are not made out, a prima faciecase is
not made out and therefore no prosecution can be done against the respondent and
he should not be compelled to face and go through the rigmarole of exhaustive
Criminal trial.

16
Cr.R 667 Of 1985

19 | P a g e
 17
(1970) A.C. 642

PRAYER

In the light of the facts stated,issues raised, authorities cited and arguments advanced,it is
most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it may be pleasedto direct :-

1. To dismiss the Special Leave Petition of the Petitioner

2. To upheld the order of Allahabad High court quashing the framing of charges

3. To hold that no offence of S-3 (r) & (s) of SC or ST (Prevention of Atrocity Act, 1986 )
have been committed.

AND/OR

Pass any such order that it may deem fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and GoodConscience
.

And for this,the respondents as in duty bound shall humbly pray.

Place : Delhi S/D …………….

Date : October 17,2023 (COUNSEL FOR

RESPONDENT )

20 | P a g e