IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

In the matter of

MR. FALANA SINGH AND FAMILY

…. Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE AND MRS.MANPREET KAUR

…. Defendant(s)

Written submission on behalf of Petitioner(s) Prepared by

(Mandar Gore, Roll No. 5067) Counsel for the Petitioner(s)

MOOT COURT NO. 2 DATE OF PRESENTATION: 06/02/2024

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Abbreviations …………………………………………………………………...3

Index of Authorities ………………………………………………………………………3

Statement of Jurisdiction………………………………………………..………………...4

Statement of Facts….…………………………………………………..………………….5,6

Issues Raised ……………………………………………………………..…………………..7

Arguments Advance………………………………………………………………………8-13

Prayer………………………………………………………………………………………14

2
 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations Full Form

Hon’ble Honourable

IPC Indian Penal Code

CRPC Criminal Procedure Code

FIR First Information Report

scc Supreme Court Cases

SC Supreme Court

air All India Reporter

sec Section

RCN Red Corner Ntoice

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

⮚ Statues Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The Constitution of India, 1949

 Cases Referred:

1. Maneka Gandhi V Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 579)

2. Poonam Singh V State & others, 22nd August 2013
3
3. Bombay V Kushal Das (AIR 1950 SC 22)
 STATEMENT OF JURIDICTION

The Petitioners humbly submits this memorandum for a petition filed before the
Honourable High Court. The petition invokes Writ Petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.

4
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Mr. Falana Singh (NRI) works in a Multinational Electronic Company at London,

England.
2. He along with his parents, namely mother Mrs. Surinder Kaur and father Mr.
Gurucharan Singh, wanted an Indian bride and had therefore come to Amritsar,
Punjab.
3. Amongst various alliances Mr. Falana Singh’s family choose Ms. Manpreet Kaur
Sodhi, daugther of Shri Vikram Singh Sodhi and Mrs. Savita Kaur Sodhi.
4. Their marriage was solemnized and registered on 04/02/2009 at Amritsar, Punjab.
5. The marriage expenses of Rupees Fourteen lacs were borne by the parents of the bride.
6. Soon after the marriage, Mr. Falana Singh and his family members started demanding
Rs.5 lacs from the parents of Mrs. Manpreet Kaur for the expenses to take her to
England
7. Due to the partial fulfilment of the demand; they started mental torture and cruelty to
Manpreet Kaur.
8. The mother-in-law Mrs. Surinder Kaur against the will of Manpreet took away all the
gold ornaments that were given by the bridegroom's family under the pretext of
carrying the same to London for her.
9. Later Mr. Falana Singh’s sister Mrs. Sunanda Kaur Bhatti with the help of a doctor
conducted the virginity test of Mrs. Manpreet Kaur before the consummation of the
marriage.
10. However, when Manpreet Kaur posed a question as to how was Falana Singh going to
establish his virtue, to that the entire family reacted strongly. Thereafter Mr. Falana
Singh and Manpreet Kaur relocated to London, England on 15th May 2009.
11. Manpreet Kaur later demanded that her husband should help her brother to settle in
London and also to take care of her parents as they had spent their resources
considerably.
12. This and other factors led to frequent arguments and quarrels between them.

5
13. Mr. Falana Singh and his relatives subjected Manpreet Kaur to mental torture and
harassment due which Manpreet Kaur left her husband's house without informing him
and came to India in December 2009.
14. Thereafter Mr. Falana Singh tried several times to contact Manpreet to come back to
London, which she refused.
15. Once in India, Mrs. Manpreet Kaur lodged a complaint bearing FIR No. 189 dated
20/01/2010, at Amritsar Police Station under Sec. 498-A, 406 г/w 34 of Indian Penal
Code, against Mr. Falana Singh and his relatives i.e. mother Mrs. Surinder Kaur and
father Mr. Gurucharan Singh.
16. Since the sister of the Mr. Falana Singh was staying in Amritsar, the charge-sheet
came to be filed against her only, wherein all the others were shown as absconding.
Since they did not appear before the Investigating Authorities.
17. The Authorities issued a requisition for RCN (Red Corner Notice) against the accused
with the Interpol (International Police Organization).
18. Subsequently the case against the sister was tried, wherein the Complainant Mrs.
Manpreet Kaur deposed that she does not want to prosecute any further, hence the
sister was acquitted. The Complainant had sought divorce and the same was granted
ex-parte.

6
 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1

Where does the jurisdiction lie?

ISSUE 2

Whether the writ of certiorari is applicable to quash the F.I.R. and RCN?

7
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCE

ISSUE NO. 1

Where will the jurisdiction lie?

This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case on hand because it is provided
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The remedy of Certiorari Writ is issued under Art 226.

A Writ of Certiorari is issued by a Superior Court (SC and HC) to an inferior court or body
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions to remove a suit from such inferior court or
body and adjudicate upon the validity of the proceedings or body exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial functions. It may be used before the trial to prevent an excess or abuse of jurisdiction
and remove the case for trial to higher court. It is invoked also after trial to quash an order
which has been made without jurisdiction or in violation of the rules of natural justice.
Speaking on the scope of Writ the SC in the Province of Bombay Vs Kushal Das AIR 1950
SC 22 held that, whenever any body of persons having legal authority to determine questions
affecting the rights of subjects and having the duty to act judicially, acts in excess of their
legal authority, a Writ of Certiorari lies. It does not lie to remove merely ministerial act or to
remove or cancel executive administrative acts.

Grounds on which Writ can be issued: The Writ of Certiorari is issued to a judicial or quasi-
judicial body on following grounds:

a) Where there is want or excess of jurisdiction

b) Where there is violation of procedure or disregards of principles of natural justice

c) Where there is error of law apparent on the face of the records but not error of fact

8
The Article is given below:

Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout
the territories in relation to which ti exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto
and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III
and for any other purpose

(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government,
authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in
relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the
exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the
residence of such person is not within those territories

(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or
in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1),
without

(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and al documents in support of the plea for
such interim order; and

(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court
for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose
favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of
the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the
date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the
High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day

9
afterwards on which the High Court is open; and fi the application is not so disposed of, the
interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the aid
next day, stand vacated.

(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the
power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of Article 32.

ISSUE NO. 2

Whether the writ of certiorari is applicable to quash the F.I.R. and RCN?

The Writ of Certiorari is being requested for quashing the FIR &RCN under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India which provides remedies for violation of fundamental rights of the
citizens of India.

Grounds on which Writ of Certiorari is requested:

a) Where there is violation of procedure or disregards of principles of natural justice:

The principles of natural justice namely 1) the Court or tribunal should be free from bias and
interest, and 2) "audi alteram partem" i.e. the parties must be heard before the decision is
given; are the two basic principles on which justice is delivered.

b) Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India:

It is contented by the petitioner that Article 21 has been violated affecting personal liberty. A
Free and fair trial is a fundamental right of every citizen of the country.

In Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India, the SC has not only overruled Gopalan’s case but has
widened the scope of the word "personal liberty" considerably.

Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) observed:

"The expression 'personal liberty' in Article 21 is of widest amplitude and it covers a

variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have
raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under
Article 19.”

The Courts lay down great stress on procedural safeguards. The procedures must satisfy the
requirement of natural justice, i.e. it must be just, fair and reasonable.

10
in the case on hand, Mr. Falana Singh and his parents have not been given a chance of
hearing before disposing the case for divorce submitted by Mrs. Manpreet Kaur and divorce
was granted to her ex- parte.

c) Freedom of movement under Article 19(1) (d) of the Constitution of India:

It is the contention of the petitioners that Article 19 (1) (d) has been violated in the case of
Mr.Falana Singh and his parents due to issue of RCN by the authorities which has restricted
them from travelling internationally.

It is observed that the RCN was issued for extraneous reasons. The petitioner humbly submits
that since the divorce has been granted ex-parte, the purpose of RCN itself is questionable.
Since the matter pertaining to these offences is subjudiced, it will not be appropriate to
comment on this aspect but suffice it to say that the action against the petitioner for issuing
RCN was uncalled for in view of the fact that neither offence, for which the petitioner is
facing trial in India, is an extraditable offence, nor any request for extradition of the petitioner
has been made despite knowing whereabouts of the petitioner. It is, therefore, a humble plea
of the petitioners to consider it a fit case for quashing the RCN issued against the petitioners.

d) Section 498A IPC for protection of women:

It is submitted that the present case is a sheer misuse of the provision mentioned under
Sections 498A / 406 / 34 IPC. The said provision was meant for the protection of women and
it should not be used against the innocent persons and against a woman herself (Mother). The
Father and Mother of the petitioner had not many occasions to interact with the respondent
and the allegations made in the FIR are just to harass the petitioners.

It is submitted to the Honourable Court that the complaint was wholly covered under the case
of State of Haryana and Ors. V. Bhajan Lal and Ors. which is as under:

"Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
petitioner and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

11
This can be inferred from the fact that the respondent demanded that her husband should
establish her brother in London and also take care of her parents which was a demand beyond
the capacity and resources of the petitioner.

e) The proceedings of divorce appear to have happened in a manner which gives room
for suspicion.

This is contented on the basis of efforts taken by Mr. Falana Singh to contact Mrs.Manpreet
Kaur to come back to London. Several attempt were made by Mr.Falana Singh requesting her
to come back to London which she refused. In fact, she had left the house without informing
anybody and went to India on December 2009.

The time span between going to London i.e. 15th May 2009 and coming back to India i.e.
December 2009 is only 7months which is too short a period in marital life to know each other
to have differences of the nature of not getting resolved amicably.

This is to further submit to the Lordship that the intention of Mr.Falana Singh was never to
divorce Mrs. Manpreet Kaur but to continue a happy married life. However, Mrs. Manpreet
Kaur instead of coming back to London, filed an FIR at Amritsar Police Station. This in itself
exhibits some mala fide intention on the part of Mrs. Manpreet Kaur which could be to harm
the reputation and harass Mr.Falana Singh and his family.

Further, it is not in dispute that the divorce has been granted ex-parte.

f) Inherent Powers of High Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure

The important question that falls for determination in the instant appeal is about the ambit
and scope of the inherent powers of the High Courts under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 in quashing of the criminal proceedings in non-compoundable
offences relating to matrimonial disputes.

It is not in dispute that in this case, after filing of the criminal complaint under Sections
498A, 406 & 34 of IPC, and the proceedings, the case against Mrs. Sunanda Kaur Bhatti was
tried, wherein Mrs. Manpreet Kaur deposed that she does not want to prosecute any further,

12
hence Mrs. Sunanda Kaur Bhatti was acquitted. Mrs. Manpreet Kaur had also sought divorce
and the same was granted ex-parte.

We humbly submit that in the case on hand, the Honourable Court has power under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR.

482. Saving of inherent power 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 this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

The counsel for the parties would like to draw the attention of Honourable Court to the
decision in B.S. Joshi and Others V. State of Haryana and Another. (2003) 4 SCC 675,
where the Court held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482
can quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes where the dispute is entirely private
and the parties are willing to settle their disputes amicably.

We are, therefore, of the view that for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of
FIR becomes necessary.

13
 PRAYER

It is humbly submitted before this Honourable High Court that in the light of the issues
raised, arguments advanced and submissions made, this Hon'ble Court:

a) May be pleased to quash the FIR / RCN.

b) May be pleased to drop the criminal proceedings pending before the Court on the
Petitioners.

And grant any other relief in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience and for this
the petitioner shall ever humbly pray.

14