TC-P2

SCHOOL OF LAW, IILM UNIVERSITY

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (INTRA) 2024u

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF UNION OF INDIANA

PETITION NO.________/2024

IN THE CASE CONCERNING THE MATTER:

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

ROHAN MEHRA

VERSUS

RIYA

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF CONSTITUTION OF UNION OF INDIANA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

1
 SCHOOL OF LAW, IILM UNIVERSITY

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (INTRA) 2024

[TABLE OF CONTENTS]

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………...4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………....5

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………... 6

ISSUES RAISED…………………………………………………………....9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………..10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………….……..11

. Whether the special leave petition is maintainable in the hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana?

1.1 Maintainability of SLP………………………….…11

1.2 Complex question of law…………………………..12

1.3 Substantial question of law………………………..13

1.4 Miscarriage of justice……………………………..13

1.5 SLP under special circumstances………………...14

PRAYER……………………………………………………………………...15

2
 SCHOOL OF LAW, IILM UNIVERSITY

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (INTRA) 2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

-STATUTES-

CONSTITUTION OF UNION OF INDIANA,1950

INDIANA PENAL CODE, 1860

-CASES REFERRED-

State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih

Khoday Distilleries ltd. v. Mahadeshwara S.S.K. Ltd
N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss SC
Tirupati Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. The state of Bihar
Kunhayammed v. The State of Kerala
Pritam Singh v. State
Uday vs State of Karnataka
Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana
Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat
Indira Kaur And Ors. vs Sheo Lal Kapoor

-BOOKS-

M.P JAIN INDIAN CONSTITUTUINAL LAW,LEXIS NEXIS,8 th edition,2022

-LEGAL DATABASE-

SCC ONLINE
MANUPATRA

3
 LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

ABBREVATION WORD
Art. ARTICLE
IPC INDIANA PENAL CODE, 1860
Hon’ble HONOURABLE
Ors. OTHERS
Sec. SECTION
v. Versus
UOI UNION OF INDIANA
SPL SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
SC SUPREME COURT
1 FOOT NOTE 1
2 FOOT NOTE 2 and so on

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONERS HUMBLY SUBMIT THIS MEMORANDUM APPROACHING THE

HONOURABLE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 136, OF THE CONSTITUTION OF UNION OF
INDIANA.

IT SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND ARGUMENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE IN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE PETITIONERS

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Rohan Mehra is a 28-year-old entrepreneur. He completed his MBA in Marketing from the Indiana Institute
of Management (a prestigious institute) (Batch 2017–19) in Tucknow, Ultra Pradesh, Indiana. After completing
his graduation, Mr. Rohan Mehra went abroad for a year to learn the art of perfumery in the renowned state of
Francis (a country in Europa). After returning, he started his own company of perfumes with the name ‘Scents’.
The company has built a good reputation in the Indiana market in a very short span of time.

2. Riya Singh, a 27-year-old marketing executive, completed her education at the Indiana Institute of
Technology (Batch 2017-19) in Tucknow, Ultra Pradesh. After graduating, she got a campus placement from
the college itself in a renowned company, ‘TCJ’, where she has been working since then as a software
developer at a good pay.

3. During their time at the Indiana Institute of Technology, both used to work on many class projects and field
assignments and soon developed a strong sense of liking for each other. Riya was mesmerised by Rohan’s
charm and ambition, whereas Rohan was awestruck by Riya’s beauty and intelligence. They both confessed
their love to each other on 10thMarch 2018 and became a popular couple in the whole institute.

4. Their love was intact even when Rohan went abroad to study the art of perfumery in 2019. The two used to
have long conversations over voice calls, instant messages and video calls for over a year. After returning to
Indiana, their relationship became stronger than ever both physically and emotionally.

5. While in relationship Rohan used to take Riya with him to all the social gatherings and functions. On the
night of November 20, 2022, Rohan took Riya to his brother’s marriage, where she met Rohan’s family and
relatives. Rohan introduced Riya to his mother, where Rohan’s mother, after meeting Riya, asked both of them,
“When will you two throw a similar function for us?”. Listening to the question, Rohan and Riya looked at each
other and smiled, and then Riya said, “Soon.” Listening to the same Rohan, he did not respond.

6. Also, Rohan used to introduce Riya to his friend circle, thereby bringing their relationship into the
knowledge of their social circle. Rohan, during a party when he was in a drunken state, was asked by his friends
Rishi and Radha, who were married, about the future of his relationship with Riya, to which Rohan replied,
‘Riya will make a perfect wife’. The same conversation was narrated to Riya by Radha without the consent or
knowledge of Rohan. Rohan was unaware of any such communication being made to Riya by Radha.

7. Rohan and Riya started living together. Rohan pitched an idea to Riya that she should work with her and
develop an app for his perfume company ‘Scents’ so that they can sell their perfumes directly without involving

6
other shopping applications like Amacon, Flipmart etc. Riya liked the idea and started working on developing
the app for it, but at the same time, iterated that she would not quit her job.

8. As they were in a relationship, no formal written contract was executed between the two, and thus the entire
agreement was based on the exchange of messages on WhatApp (an instant messaging application).

9. Over a WhatApp chat on 13th May 2023, both of them agreed on a payment structure in which Ria will get a
lumpsum amount of Rs 10 Lac once the application is developed. However, the mode and timing of payments
were not clearly defined.

10. As the work progressed, the parties experienced disagreements relating to the development of the
application, with Rohan claiming that some crucial aspects of the project were left as Riya was not able to
balance her

11. As a consequence of the same, Rohan denied adequate payment as promised in the WhatApp chats on the
ground of a deficiency in services rendered, thus annoying Riya. But Rohan calmed her down so that their
relationship was not affected.

12. On November 17, 2023, Riya asked Rohan to marry her, which Rohan denied and thereby called off the
relationship.

13. Meanwhile, feeling deceived and emotionally distressed, filed an FIR alleging that Rohan had engaged in
sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage, and now he was refusing to fulfil his promise. Rohan
denies any expressed promise relating to marriage made by him, whereas Riya contends that an implied
promise of marriage was made and thus she gave her consent for sexual intercourse on the pretext of marriage.

14. Following the same, medical tests were performed and it was confirmed on the basis of reports that sexual
intercourse took place frequently between Rohan and Riya. However, nothing was concluded on the matter of
consent.

15. As a consequence of the same, Rohan was arrested. Rohan was presented before the magistrate.

16. Rohan was denied bail and was later acquitted for the charges by Trial Court of Tucknow. The trial court
held that, both Riya and Rohan were in consensual relationship, therefore, Rohan cannot be held liable for
Rape.

17. Riya filed an appeal against the trial Court’s Order in High Court of Ultra Pradesh. The High Court reversed
trial Court’s judgment and convicted Rohan for the charge of Rape on the pretext of Marriage. Rohan then filed
a Special Leave Petition in Supreme Court of Indiana against High Court’s order.

18. Rohan further asked the court to take into consideration that his family had been looking out for a bride on
marriage platform Jeevanteresaathi.com and thus, he and Shreya (the girl who agreed to marry him through
7
Jeevanteresaathi.com) have decided to get married and that his fundamental Right to Marry enshrined by the
Constitution of Indiana would be violated.

19. However, Riya also filed a suit for breach of contract. To which Rohan alleges that conversations on
WhatApp are not formal in nature. He also contends that WhatApp chats does not form a valid contract.

20. Apart from this, Rohan has also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 375 of the Indiana Penal
Code, 1860, entitling only women to file a case on the ground of consent on the pretext of marria ge and the
same not available to men .

8
 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE I

-Whether the Special Leave Petition is Maintainable in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana?

9
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

-Whether the Special Leave Petition is Maintainable in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana?

It is Most Humbly submitted before the hon’ble SC of Union of Indiana that the SLP filed by the petitioner is
maintainable as gross injustice has been occurred to the petitioner and the HC had errored in the interpretation
of consent.

Hence the same should be dismissed by the SC of Union of Indiana.

10
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indiana that this special
leave petition is maintainable in this Court. Article 136 of the Constitution of Indiana reads as
follow:-
1.1 Maintainability of SLP
As rightly pointed out by Krishna Iyer, when extraordinary power under Art. 1361 chases injustice,
sky is the limit. Thus, the Supreme Court while exercising power under Art. 136, not only acts as a
“court of law” but also as a “court of equity”; and such a power is exercised for doing full and
complete justice.

i. Art. 136 talks about Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court which states in clause (1)
that “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. “This
has also been reiterated in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih 2 (White Washer), that Art. 136
confers a wide discretionary power on the Supreme Court to interfere in suitable cases. Art.
136 is a special jurisdiction and can be described as “a residuary power, extraordinary in its
amplitude and is a corrective jurisdiction that vest a discretion in the SC. In the instant case,
the petitioner approaches the SC against the judgement of HC which is valid per se. Hence,
the petition is maintainable in the Hon'ble court.
ii. In the case of Khoday Distilleries ltd. v. Mahadeshwara S.S.K. Ltd 3. it was held that Art. 136
commences with a non-obstante clause, the words are of overriding effect and clearly
indicate the intention of the framers of the Constitution that it is a special jurisdiction and
residuary power unfettered by any statute or other provisions of Chapter IV of Part. V 4 of the
Constitution. Therefore, no one can't disregard the question of the maintainability of the
petition and bar the right of the petitioner of approaching the SC claiming any statute.
iii. In the case of N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss 5 SC observed about the scope of Art. 136 that
Art. 136 of the Constitution is not a regular forum of appeal at all. It is a “residual” provision
that enables the Supreme Court to interfere with the judgment or order of any court or
tribunal in India at its discretion.

1
Article 136 of the Constitution of Indiana
2
AIR 2015 SC 696, 2015 AIR SCW 501
3
1996 AIR 911, AIR 1996 SC 911
4
Chapter IV of Part. V of Constitution of Indiana
5
2007 AIR SCW 1217, 2007 (9) SCC 196
11
 iv. Similarly in the case of Tirupati Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. The state of Bihar 6, in para
no. 14 of the judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that Art. 136 is an “extraordinary
jurisdiction” vested by the Constitution in the Supreme Court with implicit trust and faith.It
is humbly submitted before Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the case of Kunhayammed v. The
State of Kerala 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that under Art. 136 of the constitution,
the supreme court may reverse, modify, or affirm the judgment-decree or order appealed
against while exercising its appellate jurisdiction. Herein in this Special leave petition filed
by Mr. Rohan to ratify the error in the judgment that was delivered by the High court.
v. In the case of Pritam Singh v. State8, SC held that a special leave petition only is accepted if
there “exceptional and special circumstances exist”, that “substantial and grave injustice” has
been done.
vi. A.136 of the Constitution is couched in the widest phraseology. This Court's jurisdiction is
limited only by its discretion as observed in Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab,2 It is pertinent to
note that the scope of A. 134 providing appeals to the SC in criminal matters is limited
whereas A. 136 is very broad-based & confers discretion on the court to hear “in any cause
or matter” as noted on page 5 of Pritam Singh v. State

The Petitioner in the present case has filed the SLP under article 136 as the High Court has
held the Petitioner guilty, for the offense of false promise to marry and he has not committed
the offence of rape, hence is maintainable.

1.2 COMPLEX QUESTION OF LAW

In case of Uday vs State of Karnataka 9, the honorable SC observed that in a case of this nature two
conditions must be fulfilled for the application of Section 90 IPC 10.
Firstly, it must be shown that the consent was given under a misconception of fact.Secondly, it
must be proved that the person who obtained the consent knew, or had reason to believe that the
consent was given in consequence of such misconception

In Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana 11, the honorable SC observed that

There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and in a case like this, the court must
very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala
fide motives, and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls

6
AIR 2004 SC 2351, 2004 (5) SCC1
7
AIR 2000 SC 2587, 2000 AIR SCW 2608
8
1950 AIR 169, AIR 1950 SC 169
9
2003 SCC, AIR 2003 SC 1639
10
Section 90 of Indiana Penal Code 1860
11
AIR 2013 SC 2071
12
 within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is a distinction between the mere breach of a
promise, and not fulfilling a false promise. Thus, the court must examine whether there was made, at
an early stage a false promise of marriage by the accused; and whether the consent involved was
given after wholly understating the nature and consequences of sexual indulgence. There may be a
case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for
the accused, or where an accused on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen, or
which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her, despite having every intention to do so.
Such cases must be treated differently.

1.3 Substantial Question of Law:

Even if the contention that the impugned matter at hand does not involve a substantial question of
law is taken to be true, the courts through various judicial precedents have overlooked the presence
of a substantial question of law in a criminal appeal filed under article 136 and have admitted a
special leave petition solely on the grounds of there being a gross miscarriage of justice. Thus
fulfilling both the ingredients is not the requisite in a criminal appeal filed under article 136. Even if
either of the ingredients are fulfilled the SLP is ought to be maintainable. The court would look into
the matter only if there is an error in law or the conclusion arrived at by the court has led to grave
miscarriage of justice.

This is clearly stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of
Gujarat12, while laying down the jurisprudence for Article 136 in criminal matters, the emphasis
which is laid down on the word ‘or’ makes it evident and clear that one of the requisite needs to be
fulfilled.

1.4 Grave Miscarriage of Justice:

The two essential ingredients for the maintainability of a petition under art.136 are substantial
question of law and grave miscarriage of justice. In the present case, there has been a gross
miscarriage of justice towards the Petitioner wherein the Hon’ble High Court has convicted the
Petitioner. The interpretation of consent taken by High Court in their judgment is erroneous and
contrary to the decided law by the SC.
In case of Indira Kaur And Ors. vs Sheo Lal Kapoor13 , it was held as following:-
"If and when the Court is satisfied that great injustice has been done it is not only the 'right' but also the 'duty'
of this Court to reverse the error and the injustice and to upset the finding notwithstanding the fact that it has
been affirmed thrice.

12
1983 AIR 753, 1983 SCR (3)280
13
AIR 1988 SC 1074, 1988(1)SCALES598
13
The petitioner have came into relation with prosecutrix on 10 th march 2018 and took her to meet his
family and friends on 20 th November 2022 and his act of taking her to meet his family and friends
does not amount to any promise and she voluntarily acted as mentioned, through cases the supreme
court has held that if the promise is not false the consent is not based on misguided facts.
If the circumstances of the case would have been as such where the prosecutrix would have acted on
the false pretext of promise of marriage then the result of circumstances would have been drastically
changed.

1.5 SLP granted under Special Circumstances:

It has been seen and proved over and again in the precedents that the powers provided to the Apex
Court under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and is to be used in special
circumstances.
In the present case, the requisite to invoke the Article 136 has been fulfilled in the contentions made
above. The Trial passed a judgment which was reversed by the Hon’ble HC leading to grave
miscarriage of justice. The erroneous judgment was passed by the court has led to conviction of the
said accused. Moreover, the chain of events taking into consideration the background circumstances
have not been dealt. Thus the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under article 136 should rightfully
be exercised in the present case as there has been substantial and gross miscarriage of justice and
presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed, thereby
involving special and exceptional circumstances. Thus, it is humbly submitted that the High Court
have erred in passing the judgment, which has led to grave miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the
present SLP is maintainable.

14
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the lights of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most humbly prayed
and implored before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indiana, that it may be graciously pleased to adjudge and
declare that:

1. The petitions be held maintainable under Art-136 of constitution of Indiana.

2. The impugned judgment passed by HC be held erroneous.
3. The definition of consent should be discuss explicitly in the light of decided cases by the SC.
4. Accordingly ,the petition under Art-136 should be maintained by the SC as this is the matter of grave
injustice to the petitioner

and/or

Kindly pass any other order, direction, or relief that the hon’ble court may deem fit in favor of the petitioner of
to meet the ends of justice, equity, fairness, and good conscience.

For this act of kindness of your lordship, the Petitioners shall duty bound forever pray.

PLACE: S/d-

DATE: COUNSELS FOR PETITIONERS

15