IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

S.L.P No. - 123/2024

IN THE MATTER OF
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ROHAN MEHRA

PETITONER
Vs.

RIYA SINGH
AND
STATE OF MANDHRA PRADESH
RESPONDENT

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ,1950

 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
S.NO. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1 CERTIFICATE 1
2 LIST OF ABBREVATIONS 2
3 STATUTES/BOOKS/CASES/WEBSITE REFERRED 3-5
4 SLPA 6-9
5 STATEMENT OF FACTS 10-11
6 STATEMENT OF ISSUES (ISSUES RAISED) 12-13
7 QUESTION OF LAW 14-16
8 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 17-18
9 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 19-20
10 PRAYER 21-22
11 PROVISION OF BAIL AND POWERS OF SUPREME COURT 23-25
 CERTIFICATE
We, The Undersigned, Anil Dhanak, Mohit Agarwal, Pankaj Singh Kanwal,
and, hereby declare that we are 6 th Semester LLB Students of Faculty of Law,
SSJ University. We have diligently prepared this moot court file under the
esteemed guidance of our learned teachers and a distinguished advocate.

We extend our heartfelt gratitude to our professors for their invaluable

guidance and support throughout the preparation of this moot court. Their
mentorship and encouragement have been instrumental in our learning and the
successful completion of this project.

Certified By:
1) Anil Dhanak SSJUUL21010008
2) Mohit Agarwal SSJUUL21010074
3) Pankaj Singh Kanwal SSJUUL21010088
GROUP CODE : I1-I2

1
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

ABB. SIGN WORDS

& And

AIR All India reporter

Art. articles

Co. company

Govt. government

Hon’ble honorable

No. Internet service provider

Ors. Other

Pg Page number

S. No. Serial number

PIL Public interest litigation

SC Supreme court reports

SCC Supreme court cases

V. versus

Sec section

SCR Supreme court report

2
STATUTES REFERRED

The Specific Relief Act, 1963

The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

BOOKS REFERRED

"Rape Law and Confronting Sexual Violence: A Comprehensive Guide" by T. K. Rajalakshmi

This book delves into the legal framework and societal context of rape laws in India, examining legislative changes and
case law.

"Law Relating to Sexual Offences" by K. D. Gaur

A detailed analysis of the laws relating to sexual offenses in India, including rape, with comprehensive coverage of
statutes and judicial interpretations.

"Commentary on the Law of Rape" by Manjula Batra

This commentary provides an in-depth look at the statutory provisions, case law, and legal principles governing rape in
India.

"Rape: Legal Issues and Confronting Sexual Violence" edited by Shakila Hegde
This edited volume brings together essays and articles on various aspects of rape law in India, offering multiple
perspectives on the issue.

Breach of Contract

"Pollock and Mulla on the Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts" by R. Yashod Vardhan and Chitra Narayan:A
comprehensive and authoritative commentary on the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the Specific Relief Act, 1963,
covering breach of contract in detail.

"The Law of Contract" by Avatar Singh: A widely used textbook that provides a thorough understanding of contract
law in India, including principles and cases related to breach of contract.

"Contract Law in India" by Nilima Bhadbhade: This book offers a detailed analysis of Indian contract law, with a focus
on the legal principles and judicial decisions relating to breach of contract.

"Anson's Law of Contract" adapted for India by R. Avtar Singh: An adapted version of the classic text, tailored to the
Indian context, providing detailed coverage of breach of contract issues.

General Moot Court Preparation

"Moot Courts and Mooting" by K. L. Bhatia: This book provides practical guidance on how to prepare and participate
in moot court competitions, specifically within the Indian legal education system.

"Moot Court Manual" by R. Venkatesan: A practical manual for students preparing for moot court competitions in
India, covering research, drafting, and oral advocacy.

"Guide to Moot Court" by Kailash Rai: This guide offers step-by-step instructions on preparing for moot court, with an
emphasis on Indian legal practices and procedures.
3
WEBSITES/CASES REFERRED

Manupatra: Manupatra is one of the most comprehensive legal research databases in India. It provides access to case
laws, statutes, notifications, and a vast collection of legal articles and journals.

SCC Online: SCC Online offers extensive legal research tools and databases, including Supreme Court cases, High
Court cases, Tribunals, and statutory material.

Indian Kanoon: Indian Kanoon is a free legal database that allows users to search for judgments from the Supreme
Court, High Courts, and various tribunals, as well as statutes and government notifications.

Lawctopus: Lawctopus is a popular legal portal for law students and professionals. It provides information on
internships, jobs, legal events, and offers various articles on different legal topics.

Bar & Bench: Bar & Bench is a leading news website for the legal fraternity in India, offering news, analysis, and
opinions on law and policy.

LiveLaw: LiveLaw provides real-time legal news, updates, and insights on various legal developments and court
proceedings in India.

Vakilno1: Vakilno1 is a legal resource portal offering a range of legal materials including case laws, articles, legal
forms, and a lawyer directory.

iPleaders: iPleaders is known for its extensive collection of legal articles, online courses, and blogs that cater to
various aspects of Indian law and legal education.

LexisNexis India: LexisNexis India offers a wide range of legal research tools, publications, and databases, covering
Indian and international legal content.

SpicyIP: SpicyIP focuses on intellectual property law in India, offering in-depth analysis, news, and updates on IP-
related legal developments.

CASES REFERRED
Contract Law
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Telephone Cables Ltd. (2010) 5 SCC 213: The Supreme Court held that an agreement
via electronic means (emails, messaging platforms) could constitute a binding contract if it fulfills the essential
elements of a contract.

Sharda Nath v. Smt. Suraj Dei &Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1963: The Supreme Court held that the intention of the parties and
the specific terms discussed in informal communications can be crucial in determining the existence of a contract.

M/S Trimex International FZE Limited, Dubai v. Vedanta Aluminium Limited, India (2010) 3 SCC 1: This case
reaffirmed that agreements and understandings communicated via electronic means could be enforceable if they reflect
mutual assent and consideration.

Twinkle Chhabra v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2015 SCC Online Del 12235: The Delhi High Court recognized that a
series of communications through instant messaging could establish a contractual obligation if clear terms were agreed
upon.

4
Rape Law and Consent
Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46: The Supreme Court ruled that a consensual sexual relationship under a
promise of marriage, which subsequently does not culminate in marriage, does not necessarily amount to rape if the
promise was not false at the inception.

Prashant Bhardwaj v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2017 SCC Online Del 11421: The Delhi High Court held that for a
promise to marry to amount to rape, it must be established that the promise was false at the time it was made and was
intended to deceive.

Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675: The Supreme Court observed that consensual physical
relationships often arise out of love and affection, and a breach of promise to marry does not per se constitute rape.

Karthi v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2013 SCC Online Mad 649: The Madras High Court clarified that for a conviction under
Section 375, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the consent was vitiated by a false promise to marry.

Special Leave Petition and Constitutional Issues

Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh, AIR 1954 SC 520: The Supreme Court discussed the maintainability
of Special Leave Petitions under Article 136, outlining broad criteria for what constitutes a significant legal issue
meriting the Supreme Court's intervention.

Lata Singh v. State of U.P. & Another (2006) 5 SCC 475:The Supreme Court upheld the fundamental right to marry a
person of one's choice as part of personal liberty under Article 21, which could be argued in the context of Rohan's
claim regarding his right to marry.

Others
Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675: This case discusses the concept of consent in the context of a
promise to marry and emphasizes that a false promise must be made with the intention to deceive from the beginning.

Trimex International FZE Ltd. v. Vedanta Aluminum Ltd. (2010) 3 SCC 1: This judgment highlights the binding nature
of agreements made through electronic communication.

Lata Singh v. State of UP (2006) 5 SCC 475: This case upholds the fundamental Right to Marry as part of the right to
life and personal liberty.

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1: This landmark judgment focuses on equality and non-
discrimination under the Constitution, relevant to the challenge against Section 375 IPC.

Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46: This case clarifies that a breach of promise to marry, without fraudulent
intent from the start, does not constitute rape.

Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608: This judgment reiterates that failure to fulfill a
promise to marry does not necessarily amount to a false promise.

5
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
IN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
Special Leave Petition No. __________ of 2024

Rohan Mehra (Petitioner)

Versus

Riya Singh
State Of Mandhra Pradesh (Respondent)

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA FOR SPECIAL

LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED __________ PASSED
BY THE HIGH COURT OF MANDHRA PRADESH IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. __________

To,

The Hon'ble Chief Justice and His Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of Indiana.

The humble petition of the Petitioner above named:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. Introduction:

1.1 The petitioner, Rohan Mehra, an entrepreneur, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated
__________ passed by the High Court of Mandhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. __________, whereby the High
Court reversed the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, Syderabad, and convicted the petitioner for the
charge of rape under Section 375 of the Indiana Penal Code, 1860.

1.2 The petitioner further seeks adjudication on whether the WhatApp communications between the petitioner and the
respondent constitute a legally binding contract and whether the High Court's decision infringes upon his
fundamental Right to Marry as enshrined by the Constitution of Indiana.

2. Questions of Law:

2.1 Whether the Special Leave Petition is maintainable in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indiana.

2.2 Whether the agreement entered into by Rohan and Riya on WhatApp amounts to a valid contract recognizable by
laws in Indiana.

2.3 Whether the consent for sexual intercourse was given by Riya on the pretext of marriage and does it amount to
rape under Section 375 of the Indiana Penal Code.

3. Facts of the Case:

3.1 The petitioner, Rohan Mehra, and the respondent, Riya Singh, were in a relationship since their time at the
Indiana Institute of Management & Technology. 6
3.2 After returning from studying perfumery in Francis, Rohan proposed that Riya develop an app for his perfume
company, 'Scents.' The terms of this agreement were discussed and agreed upon via WhatsApp.

3.3 Disputes arose during the development of the app, leading to disagreements and eventually the refusal by Rohan
to pay Riya the agreed sum citing deficiencies in her work.

3.4 Following the breakdown of their personal relationship, Riya accused Rohan of engaging in sexual intercourse on
the pretext of marriage.

3.5 The Trial Court acquitted Rohan, citing consensual relationship, but the High Court reversed this decision,
leading to the present appeal.

4. Grounds for Special Leave:

4.1 Ground 1: The High Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's judgment without substantial evidence of any
explicit or implied promise of marriage by the petitioner. This goes against established principles in similar cases
such as "Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana" (2013) 7 SCC 675, where the Supreme Court held that a false promise to
marry that is not made with the intention to deceive cannot constitute rape.

4.2 Ground 2: The communications on WhatApp should be examined to determine if they meet the criteria for a valid
contract under Indiana law. In "Trimex International FZE Ltd. v. Vedanta Aluminum Ltd." (2010) 3 SCC 1, the
Supreme Court held that electronic communications could constitute a binding contract if the essential terms are clear
and agreed upon.

4.3 Ground 3: The High Court's judgment violates the petitioner's fundamental Right to Marry by disregarding his
engagement through Jeevanpyarasaathi.com and his plans to marry another individual. The Right to Marry has been
upheld as a fundamental right in "Lata Singh v. State of UP" (2006) 5 SCC 475.

4.4 Ground 4: The constitutional validity of Section 375 of the Indiana Penal Code, which currently allows only
women to file a case on the grounds of consent on the pretext of marriage, should be re-examined as it creates a
gender bias that is contrary to principles of equality as enshrined in "Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India" (2018) 10
SCC 1.

5. Arguments in Detail:

Issue 1: Maintainability of the Special Leave Petition

5.1 The Special Leave Petition is maintainable under Article 136 of the Constitution of Indiana, which grants the
Supreme Court discretion to hear appeals from any judgment, decree, or order in any matter passed by any court or
tribunal in the country. The petitioner has a substantial question of law and gross miscarriage of justice due to the
High Court's decision, warranting the Supreme Court's intervention as established in "Pritam Singh v. State" (1950)
SCR 453.

Issue 2: Validity of the WhatApp Agreement as a Contract

5.2 Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a valid contract requires offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to
create legal relations. The WhatApp chat on May 13, 2023, between Rohan and Riya satisfies these criteria as there
was a clear offer, acceptance, and agreed consideration of Rs 25 Lac. The case "BhagwandasGoverdhandas Kedia v.
GirdharilalParshottamdas& Co." (1966) 1 SCR 656 supports that agreements through modern communication can
constitute binding contracts. 7
5.3 Rohan's defense that WhatApp conversations are informal and do not constitute a contract is untenable. As per
"Trimex International FZE Ltd. v. Vedanta Aluminum Ltd.," the Supreme Court held that emails and electronic
communications can form binding agreements if terms are clear and unambiguous.
Issue 3: Consent and Rape under Section 375 of the Indiana Penal Code

5.4 Consent obtained under a misconception of fact amounts to no consent under Section 375 of the IPC. However, in
the present case, there was no explicit or implicit promise of marriage. The decision in "Uday v. State of Karnataka"
(2003) 4 SCC 46 emphasizes that a promise to marry that is not kept does not automatically constitute rape unless it
is shown that the promise was false at the inception.

5.5 The relationship between Rohan and Riya was consensual, and Rohan’s reluctance to marry her, expressed after a
considerable time, does not retroactively nullify the consent given by Riya during the relationship. "Pramod
Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra" (2019) 9 SCC 608 states that mere failure to keep a promise cannot be
considered as a false promise.

Constitutional Validity of Section 375 of the IPC

5.6 The petitioner challenges the constitutionality of Section 375 as it discriminates based on gender, allowing only
women to claim consent on the pretext of marriage. This is contrary to the principle of equality under Article 14 of
the Constitution of Indiana, as highlighted in "Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India," where the Supreme Court
emphasized non-discrimination and equality.

6. Prayer:

In view of the above, the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

6.1 Grant special leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated __________ passed by the High Court of
Mandhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. __________.

6.2 Set aside the conviction of the petitioner under Section 375 of the Indiana Penal Code.

6.3 Declare that the WhatApp communications between the petitioner and the respondent do not constitute a legally
binding contract.

6.4 Uphold the petitioner's fundamental Right to Marry.

6.5 Consider the constitutional validity of Section 375 of the Indiana Penal Code.

6.6 Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

Place: Indiana
Date: __________

(Advocate for the Petitioner)

[Name of the Advocate]

8
Verification:

I, Rohan Mehra, the petitioner in the above Special Leave Petition, do hereby verify that the contents of paragraphs 1
to 6 are true to my knowledge and belief and that I have not suppressed any material facts.

Place: Indiana
Date: __________

Rohan Mehra
(Petitioner)

9
Statement of Facts
Background and Relationship Context:
Rohan Mehra, a 28-year-old entrepreneur, and Riya Singh, a 27-year-old marketing executive, met and developed a
romantic relationship while studying at the Indiana Institute of Management & Technology from 2016 to 2018. Their
relationship blossomed during their time at the institute and continued to strengthen even after Rohan went abroad for a
year to study perfumery.

Nature of Relationship:
Both Rohan and Riya maintained a close and affectionate relationship, regularly communicating through various
means while Rohan was abroad. Upon his return, they continued their relationship and began living together, indicating
a mutual and consensual commitment.

Social Acknowledgment:
Rohan introduced Riya to his family and friends, acknowledging her as his partner in social gatherings. At his brother's
marriage, Rohan's mother inquired about their marriage plans, to which Riya responded positively, but no formal
engagement or promise was made by Rohan at that time.

Professional Collaboration:
Rohan and Riya collaborated professionally when Rohan proposed an idea for Riya to develop an app for his perfume
company. Although Riya agreed to the project, she made it clear that she would not quit her job. Their agreement was
informal and based on WhatsApp messages, with an agreed payment of Rs 25 Lac upon completion of the app.

Disagreements and Disputes:

During the development of the app, disagreements arose regarding the quality and progress of the work. Rohan
expressed frustration over Riya's inability to balance her job and the app development, which led to disputes about the
adequacy of her services and the agreed payment.

Breakdown of Relationship:
On November 17, 2023, Riya proposed marriage to Rohan, which he declined, leading to the end of their relationship.
Subsequently, Riya filed an FIR alleging that Rohan had engaged in sexual intercourse on the pretext of marriage,
which Rohan denied, asserting that no such explicit promise was made.

Legal Proceedings:
Rohan was arrested based on the FIR and later acquitted by the Trial Court, which found the relationship to be
consensual. However, the High Court reversed this decision, convicting Rohan for rape based on an implied promise of
marriage. Rohan has filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court of Indiana challenging the High Court's
decision.

Fundamental Right and Constitutional Challenges:

Rohan contends that his fundamental right to marry, as protected by the Constitution of Indiana, would be violated by
the High Court's decision. He also challenges the constitutional validity of Section 375 of the Indiana Penal Code,
arguing that it discriminates against men by allowing only women to file cases based on consent given on the pretext of
marriage.
10
Breach of Contract Claim:
Riya filed a suit for breach of contract regarding the app development, but Rohan argues that the informal nature of
their WhatsApp conversations does not constitute a valid contract under Indiana law.
Key Points for Consideration:
Special Leave Petition Maintainability: The Supreme Court should consider the maintainability of Rohan's
petition, given the significant legal and constitutional questions raised.

Validity of WhatsApp Agreement: The agreement between Rohan and Riya on WhatsApp regarding the app
development and payment should be scrutinized for its validity as a formal contract under Indiana law.

Consent and Pretext of Marriage: The nature of the consent given by Riya for sexual intercourse and whether
it was based solely on an implied promise of marriage should be thoroughly examined. The evidence should support
that both parties engaged in a consensual relationship without explicit promises of marriage from Rohan.

Constitutional Validity of Section 375: The court should address the constitutional challenge to Section 375 of
the Indiana Penal Code, considering whether it unfairly discriminates against men and violates the principle of equality
under the law.

These points collectively form a comprehensive argument in favor of Rohan, highlighting the
consensual nature of the relationship, the informal nature of the contract, and the need for a fair
consideration of constitutional rights and legal principles.

11
Statement of Issues
Maintainability of the Special Leave Petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indiana

Issue:
Whether the Special Leave Petition filed by Rohan Mehra against the High Court's order convicting him of rape is
maintainable under the legal provisions and judicial precedents of Indiana.
Sub-Issues:
Whether the High Court's reversal of the trial court's acquittal constitutes a substantial question of law warranting the
Supreme Court's intervention.
The scope of judicial review available to the Supreme Court under the special leave jurisdiction.

Validity of the Agreement Entered into by Rohan and Riya on WhatsApp

Issue:
Whether the agreement between Rohan Mehra and Riya Singh, formulated through WhatsApp messages, constitutes a
legally binding contract under the contract laws of Indiana.
Sub-Issues:
Whether the essential elements of a valid contract (offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal
relations) are present in the WhatsApp exchanges.
The enforceability of electronic communications as valid contracts under the Information Technology laws applicable
in Indiana.

Consent for Sexual Intercourse Given by Riya on the Pretext of Marriage

Issue:
Whether Riya Singh's consent to engage in sexual intercourse with Rohan Mehra, allegedly based on an implied
promise of marriage, qualifies as rape under Section 375 of the Indiana Penal Code.
Sub-Issues:
Whether Rohan made an explicit or implied promise of marriage that induced Riya's consent for sexual intercourse.
The legal interpretation of "consent" under Section 375 and whether it was vitiated by a false promise of marriage.
The implications of consensual relationships and mutual understanding on the validity of consent.

Constitutional Validity of Section 375 of the Indiana Penal Code

Issue:
Whether Section 375 of the Indiana Penal Code, which allows only women to file rape charges based on consent
obtained under a false promise of marriage, is constitutionally valid.
Sub-Issues:
Whether the gender-specific provision of Section 375 violates the equality clause under the Constitution of Indiana.
The rationale behind the legislative intent of Section 375 and its impact on men's rights.

12
Right to Marry under the Constitution of Indiana

Issue:
Whether the High Court's order convicting Rohan of rape infringes upon his fundamental right to marry under the
Constitution of Indiana.
Sub-Issues:
The legal recognition and protection of the right to marry as a fundamental right.
The balance between criminal law provisions and individual fundamental rights in the context of the case.

Sub-Issues:

Sub-Issue 1: Whether the refusal to marry after a long-term relationship constitutes a valid ground for rape under
Section 375.
Sub-Issue 2: Whether the exchange of messages on WhatApp can be deemed as substantial evidence for breach of
contract.
Sub-Issue 3: Whether the trial court’s finding on consensual relationship is sustainable under the evidentiary rules.
Sub-Issue 4: Whether Riya's allegations, supported by her narrative and medical evidence, constitute sufficient
grounds for a conviction under Section 375.

13
Question of Law in Reference with Relevant Cases
Issue 1: Maintainability of the Special Leave Petition
Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab (1950 SCR 453): This landmark case established that the Supreme Court can exercise
its discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution to grant special leave to appeal in cases where there is a substantial
question of law or a gross miscarriage of justice.
Mohan Lal v. Management of M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd. (1981 SCR (3) 518): This case illustrates the broad
discretionary power of the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal in cases involving substantial questions of
law.

Issue 2: Validity of the WhatApp Agreement as a Contract

Trimex International FZE Ltd. v. Vedanta Aluminum Ltd. (2010) 3 SCC 1: This judgment holds that electronic
communications, including emails and messages, can constitute a binding contract if the terms are clear and there is
mutual agreement.

BhagwandasGoverdhandas Kedia v. GirdharilalParshottamdas& Co. (1966) 1 SCR 656: This case establishes that
modern forms of communication can be used to form contracts, provided there is offer, acceptance, and consideration.

K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) 7 SCC 510: This case deals with the evidentiary value of electronic
communications in proving contractual agreements.

Issue 3: Consent and Rape under Section 375 of the Indiana Penal Code
Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675: This case discusses the issue of consent in the context of a
promise to marry, stating that a false promise must be made with the intention to deceive from the outset for it to
constitute rape.

Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46: This judgment clarifies that a breach of a promise to marry, without
fraudulent intent at the inception, does not constitute rape.

Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608: This case reiterates that mere failure to keep a
promise to marry does not amount to a false promise, and thus does not constitute rape under Section 375 IPC.

Issue 4: Constitutional Validity of Section 375 of the IPC

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1: This landmark judgment emphasizes the principles of equality
and non-discrimination under the Constitution, which can be used to argue against the gender-specific nature of
Section 375 IPC.

Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2008) 3 SCC 1: This case deals with gender equality and can be used to argue
against gender-biased laws under the constitutional mandate of equality.

State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar (1991) 1 SCC 57: This case discusses the importance of consent
and personal autonomy, reinforcing the need for gender-neutral laws.

14

Sub-Issues

Sub-Issue 1: Refusal to marry after a long-term relationship

Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand (2020) 10 SCC 108: The Supreme Court held that the refusal to marry after a
prolonged relationship, in the absence of fraudulent intent from the beginning, does not constitute rape.

Sub-Issue 2: Electronic communications as evidence

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600: This case discusses the admissibility of electronic evidence
in proving factual disputes, relevant for the WhatApp messages in this case.

Sub-Issue 3: Evidentiary rules and consensual relationships

K.V. Prakash Babu v. State of Karnataka (2016) 12 SCC 254: This judgment emphasizes that a consensual relationship
cannot be retrospectively rendered non-consensual by a subsequent refusal to marry.

Sub-Issue 4: Medical evidence and consent

State of U.P. v. Chhotey Lal (2011) 2 SCC 550: This case discusses the role of medical evidence in establishing the
occurrence of sexual intercourse, while emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence to determine the nature of
consent.

15
Question of Law

Special Leave Petition (SLP)

A Special Leave Petition (SLP) is a discretionary power granted to the Supreme Court of Indiana (akin to the Supreme
Court of India under Article 136) that allows it to hear appeals against any judgment or order of any court or tribunal in
the country. The purpose of an SLP is to enable the Supreme Court to review cases that involve substantial questions of
law or gross miscarriages of justice.
Maintainability of the Special Leave Petition in This Case
Key Points:
Discretionary Nature: The Supreme Court has broad discretion to decide whether to grant an SLP. It does not
automatically hear every appeal; instead, it selects cases that present significant legal questions or where there has been
a manifest injustice.

Substantial Questions of Law: The case involves significant legal questions, including the interpretation of
consent under Section 375 of the Indiana Penal Code, the validity of electronic contracts, and the constitutional
challenge to a gender-specific statute. These are substantial questions that merit the Supreme Court's consideration.

Gross Miscarriage of Justice: Rohan Mehra's conviction by the High Court, despite the trial court's acquittal,
raises concerns about a potential miscarriage of justice. The differing interpretations of consent and the nature of the
relationship between Rohan and Riya highlight the need for the Supreme Court to clarify the law.

Constitutional Issues: The challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 375 of the Indiana Penal Code
involves fundamental rights under the Constitution of Indiana, specifically the right to equality and non-discrimination.
This adds a layer of importance to the petition.

Relevant Case Laws:

Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab (1950 SCR 453): The Supreme Court can grant special leave in cases involving
substantial questions of law or gross miscarriage of justice.
Mohan Lal v. Management of M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd. (1981 SCR (3) 518): Reinforces the broad discretionary
power of the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal in cases involving significant legal questions.

16
Summary of Arguments
Prosecution (Riya’s Argument):
Riya consented to sexual intercourse under the belief that Rohan intended to marry her.
Rohan's refusal to marry her indicates that the promise was false, thus vitiating her consent and
constituting rape under Section 375.

Defense (Rohan’s Argument):

Rohan did not make any explicit false promise of marriage.
The relationship was consensual and based on mutual understanding without any deceptive intent.
The High Court's judgment should be scrutinized for evidence supporting the claim of false promise
and bad faith.

By analyzing the elements of consent and the implications of a false promise of marriage, the court
can determine whether Riya's consent was vitiated and whether the act constitutes rape under Section
375 of the Indiana Penal Code.
The Trial Court acquitted Rohan Mehra, finding that the relationship between Rohan and Riya was
consensual.
The High Court reversed this decision, convicting Rohan of rape on the pretext of marriage.
Rohan has filed an SLP in the Supreme Court, contesting the High Court's judgment and raising
substantial legal and constitutional issues.

Arguments for Maintainability:

Significant Legal Questions: The case involves critical questions about the interpretation of consent
in the context of promises to marry, the validity of electronic contracts, and the constitutionality of
gender-specific laws. These issues are crucial for the development of legal jurisprudence.

Miscarriage of Justice: The conflicting decisions between the trial court and the high court indicate
potential judicial inconsistency, suggesting a miscarriage of justice that warrants the Supreme Court's
intervention.

Constitutional Challenge: The petition includes a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 375 of
the Indiana Penal Code, raising important questions about gender equality and the rights enshrined in
the Constitution of Indiana.

Conclusion:
Given the substantial questions of law, the potential miscarriage of justice, and the constitutional
issues involved, the Special Leave Petition filed by Rohan Mehra is maintainable. The Supreme Court
of Indiana should grant leave to appeal to ensure that justice is served and that the legal questions
presented are adequately addressed.

17
Additional Considerations:

Procedural Aspects: Ensure that the SLP is filed within the stipulated time frame and adheres to
the procedural requirements laid out by the Supreme Court.

Documentary Evidence: Include all relevant documents, such as the judgments of the lower
courts, the FIR, the WhatApp messages, and any other evidence that supports the arguments.

By addressing these points, the petitioner can effectively argue for the maintainability of the Special
Leave Petition in the Supreme Court of Indiana.
18
 Arguments Advanced
Validity of the WhatsApp Agreement as a Contract
Essential Elements of a Contract: For any agreement to be considered a valid contract under
the laws of Indiana (akin to Indian Contract Law), it must contain the following elements:

Offer and Acceptance

Intention to Create Legal Relations
Lawful Consideration
Capacity of Parties
Free Consent
Lawful Object

Electronic Contracts: The Information Technology Act (parallels can be drawn from the Indian
IT Act, 2000) recognizes the validity of electronic contracts. Messages exchanged on platforms like
WhatsApp can be considered valid if they meet the essential elements of a contract.

Application to the Case

Facts: Rohan and Riya agreed over WhatsApp that Riya would develop an app for Rohan’s perfume
company, Scents, in return for a lump sum payment of Rs 25 Lakhs.There was no formal written
contract; the entire agreement was based on WhatsApp messages.
Arguments:
Offer and Acceptance:
Offer: Rohan proposed that Riya develop an app for his company.
Acceptance: Riya accepted this proposal, agreeing to work on the app while maintaining her current
job.

Case Law: In Trimex International FZE Ltd. v. Vedanta Aluminum Ltd. (2010), the Supreme Court
of India recognized that contracts can be formed via email, establishing that electronic
communications can be binding.
Intention to Create Legal Relations:

The agreement was not casual or informal. The significant sum of Rs 25 Lakhs indicates a serious
business arrangement.

Case Law: Rose & Frank Co. v. JR Crompton & Bros Ltd. (1923) establishes that the intention to
create legal relations is essential for a contract.

19
Lawful Consideration:
Riya’s development of the app constitutes consideration, and the payment of Rs 25 Lakhs by Rohan is
the reciprocal consideration.
Case Law: Currie v. Misa (1875) defines consideration as something of value in the eyes of the law.

Capacity of Parties:

Both Rohan and Riya are adults of sound mind, capable of entering into a contract.

Free Consent:
There is no evidence of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake in the
WhatsApp messages.
Case Law: ChikkamAmmiraju v. ChikkamSeshamma (1918) explains the need for free consent for a
valid contract.

Lawful Object:
The object of the agreement (development of a business app) is lawful.
Case Law: Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya (1959) discusses lawful object in contracts.

Electronic Contracts:
The Information Technology Act validates electronic contracts and recognizes the legal validity of
electronic records and digital signatures.
Case Law: BhagwandasGoverdhandas Kedia v. GirdharilalParshottamdas& Co. (1966) establishes
that communication via modern means like telephones can result in valid contracts.

Conclusion:

The WhatsApp messages exchanged between Rohan and Riya constitute a valid contract under
Indiana law. They fulfill all the essential elements of a contract, and the electronic nature of their
communication does not undermine the contract’s validity. Therefore, the agreement is legally binding
and enforceable.
By demonstrating that the WhatsApp agreement meets the criteria for a valid contract, the petitioner
can argue effectively that the agreement between Rohan and Riya is recognizable by the laws in
Indiana.

20
 Prayer

In the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indiana

Special Leave Petition (SLP) No. ___________ of 2024

Rohan Mehra (Petitioner)

Versus

Riya Singh
&
State of Mandhra Pradesh (Respondent)

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

The Petitioner, Rohan Mehra, through his counsel, humbly submits the following prayer for
consideration by this Hon'ble Court:

Quash the Judgment of the High Court:

That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the judgment of the High Court of Mandhra
Pradesh dated [specific date], which reversed the trial court's acquittal and convicted the Petitioner of
rape under the pretext of marriage.

Reinstate the Trial Court's Judgment:

That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to reinstate the judgment of the Trial Court, Syderabad, which
found that the relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent was consensual and did not
constitute rape.

Declare WhatsApp Agreement as Non-Binding:

That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the agreement entered into between the Petitioner
and the Respondent over WhatsApp does not constitute a valid and enforceable contract under the
laws of Indiana.

Grant Bail to the Petitioner:

That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant bail to the Petitioner, pending the final decision of this
Special Leave Petition.

21
Declare Section 375 of Indiana Penal Code as Unconstitutional:
That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare Section 375 of the Indiana Penal Code, which entitles
only women to file a case on the ground of consent obtained under the pretext of marriage, as
unconstitutional for being discriminatory and violative of the equality clause under the Constitution of
Indiana.
Protect the Fundamental Right to Marry:

That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to recognize and protect the Petitioner's fundamental right to
marry, enshrined by the Constitution of Indiana, which would be violated by the decision of the High
Court.

Cost of Litigation:

That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to award the costs of this litigation to the Petitioner.

Pass Any Other Orders:

That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass any other order(s) as deemed fit and proper in the
interest of justice.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER
PRAY.

Place: [City]
Date: [Date]

Counsel for the Petitioner

[Name of the Advocate]
[Signature of the Advocate]
[Law Firm's Name, if any]
[Contact Information]

22
Provision of Bail and Powers of the Supreme Court
Provision of Bail
In the Indian legal system, the provision of bail is governed primarily by the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

Section 437 CrPC: Bail in Case of Non-Bailable Offences

This section provides that a person accused of a non-bailable offence may be released on bail by a
court or magistrate, except in cases where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused
is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. However, special circumstances
such as age, health, or the fact that the accused is a woman may be considered.

Section 439 CrPC: Special Powers of High Court or Court of Session Regarding Bail

The High Court or Court of Session has the authority to release a person on bail and impose
conditions as it deems necessary. This section also allows these courts to set aside or modify
conditions imposed by a magistrate when granting bail.

Section 438 CrPC: Direction for Grant of Bail to Person Apprehending Arrest (Anticipatory Bail)

A person who anticipates arrest on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence can apply
for anticipatory bail. This type of bail is granted at the discretion of the High Court or Court of
Session, ensuring the person's liberty until actual arrest.

Section 389 CrPC: Suspension of Sentence Pending Appeal; Release of Appellant on Bail

When an appeal is pending, the appellate court may suspend the execution of the sentence and release
the appellant on bail. This provision ensures that the appellant is not subjected to imprisonment while
the appeal is under consideration.

Powers of the Supreme Court

Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Provides the right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. The
Supreme Court can issue directions, orders, or writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition,
quo warranto, and certiorari.

Article 136 of the Constitution of India

Grants the Supreme Court the discretionary power to allow special leave to appeal from any
judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any matter passed or made by any court or
tribunal in India. This power is exercised sparingly and only in cases involving substantial questions
of law or gross injustice.
23
Article 142 of the Constitution of India
Empowers the Supreme Court to pass such decrees or make such orders as may be necessary for
doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. This provision ensures the Supreme
Court's ability to ensure justice even if specific laws do not provide for it.

Section 482 CrPC

The Supreme Court and High Courts have inherent powers to make orders to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Denial of Bail and Infringement of Fundamental Rights

Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21)
The denial of bail can infringe upon the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21
of the Constitution of India. Unjustified or prolonged detention can violate this right, which
guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to the
procedure established by law.

Right to a Fair Trial

The denial of bail, especially when an appeal is pending, may impact the accused's ability to prepare
an effective defense, thus infringing on the right to a fair trial, which is an integral part of Article 21.

Presumption of Innocence
The legal principle that an individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty is fundamental to
criminal jurisprudence. Denial of bail without substantial reasons can undermine this principle,
leading to potential violations of fundamental rights.

Judicial Precedents
Hussainara Khatoon &Ors v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979)
The Supreme Court highlighted that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21.
Unnecessary detention due to the denial of bail infringes upon this right.

State of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Balchand (1977)

The Supreme Court held that "bail, not jail" is the rule, emphasizing that the denial of bail should be
an exception rather than the norm, especially in cases where the trial may be prolonged.

Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh (1978)

The Supreme Court observed that bail decision calls for a balancing of interests of justice and the
public interest, reinforcing that liberty of an individual should not be curtailed without substantial
reasons.

24
Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1978)
The Supreme Court stated that conditions imposed for granting bail should not be excessive and
should not infringe on the fundamental rights of the accused.

Conclusion
In light of the above provisions and judicial precedents, the denial of bail, especially when an appeal
is pending, must be carefully scrutinized to ensure that it does not infringe upon the fundamental
rights of the accused. The Supreme Court, with its extensive powers under Articles 32, 136, and 142
of the Constitution, plays a crucial role in safeguarding these rights and ensuring justice.

25