MOOTING
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
MISS SALONI KAMRA, MR. JAI DEV v. PATRIKA, BACHPAN
AND ORS,
MEMORIAL SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF MISS SALONI KAMRA, MR. JAI DEV
TABLE OF CONTENT
__________________________________________________________
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………03
LEGISLATION
BOOKS REFERRED
LAW DICTIONARIES
LEGAL DATABASES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………….……………………….04
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………….……………….....05
STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………….06-08
ISSUES RAISED……………………………………………………………...………...09
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ………………………………………………………10
WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED IS MAINTAINABLE?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………………..11
PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………..….12
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
__________________________________________________________
LEGISLATION
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
THE JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION) ACT, 2000
CASES REFERRED
State of Madras V.Vaidyamatha Iyer,(1958) CriLJ 232
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works ltd. V. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, (2005) CriLJ 92
A.K. Singh & Ors V. Uttarakhand Jan Morcha, (1999) CriLJ 3500
B. Saha & Ors V. M S. Kocher, (1979) 4 SCC 177
Matajog Dobey V. H. C. Bhari, (1955) 2 SCR 925
Amrik Singh V. State of PEPSU, (1955) 1 SCR 1302
K. Krishnamacharyulu & Ors V. Venkateswara Hindu College of
Engineering & Anrs, (1997) 3 SCC 571
Court on its Own Motion V. State, 146 (2008) DLT 429
BOOKS REFERRED
B.B. Mitra- Limitation Act
Mulla-Civil procedure Code
LAW DICTIONARIES
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY
Webster’s UNIVERSAL DICTIONARY
LEGAL DATABASES
www.manupatra.com
www.indiancaselaws.org
www.indlaw.com
www.indiankanoon.org
www.judic.nic.in
www.lexisnexis.com
www.scconline.co.in
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
____________________________________________________________________________________
_
AIR All India Reporter
Art. Article
J & K. Jammu and Kashmir
CrLJ Criminal Law Journal
CrPC Criminal Procedure Code
Ed. Edition
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honourable
ILR Indian Law Reporter
IPC Indian Penal Code
J. Justice
Ltd. Limited
NOC Notes Of Cases
Ors. Others
S. Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
v. Versus
Vol. Volume
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
_____________________________________________________________________________
The counsel on behalf of the Appellant have endorsed there pleadings before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India under Sec 136 of the Constitution of India.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
__________________________________________________________________
1. Noor Mohammad (hereinafter NM) aged 13 years, student of Little Flowers School,
Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan. On 25/04/2014, NM went to a pan stall near his
school and saw his senior of eleventh standard Rajveer Singh (hereinafter RS) aged
15 years and 11 months, making gestures to come behind the shop. RS then took out a
cigarette and started smoking and offered the same to NM. He tried the joint and liked
it. Out of curiosity, NM asked RS that from where he got it and RS gave him an
address and asked him to reach that place at 5 pm sharp and warned him not to
disclose the address to anyone.
2. NM reached that spot and found that it was a deserted new construction site, a bit far
from the city and there was hardly anyone around. NM then went to the roof top of
the site as directed by RS and after sometime RS arrived there with four boys of age-
group between 14-19 years around.
3. They soon became friends with NM and gave him some special 'Chocolate' with a
Joint of Marijuana. Two boys from that group thereafter started 'touching' NM on
different parts of his body. NM by that time was so much intoxicated that he failed to
understand the nature of that act and after some time NM lost his senses and slept.
4. At around 2:30 pm next day, NM came back to his senses and found himself in a
heavy headache and nearly unable to open his eyes. When he finally stood up, he
found himself naked in a corner of the same building but on different floor. He could
not remember anything after he started eating the chocolate given by RS. He then
covered himself with a torn shawl which he found nearby with a printed message to
check the inbox of his e-mail. When he did so, he found an e-mail with an attached
video and about a dozen photographs. In the video, he saw himself being molested at
the very first by all those boys and thereafter being sodomized by the entire group one
by one. Thereafter, he received a call from RS who warned him of dire consequences
for disclosing last day's act to anyone. He also told him that he will upload the video
on U-2, a globally recognized free site for uploading Movie and Songs and also on
Face-Life another trans-national social website. Thereafter, NM reached the nearby
highway, got an auto-rickshaw for himself and reached home by 4 pm. Everyone in
his family was waiting for him. At once he didn't tell to his parents about the incident
but after their continuous questioning and mental assurance, told them the entire
unfortunate incident. NM's parents told him not to disclose this to the Police or
anyone concerned as it was a matter of the reputation of the entire family concerned.
5. On 28/04/2014, RS called NM and demanded Rupees 10,000 within 24 hours. He also
told NM that non fulfillment of the demand would lead to photo and video upload.
NM got very scared and didn’t tell anybody about the call. Thinking of his family’s
reputation, he made a plan to steal his mother’s gold earrings and pay the ransom to
RS. This continued for some time till NM's father realised that things were being
stolen from the house. NM’s father went to ‘BACHPAN’, a Non Governmental
Organisation (hereinafter NGO) to sought their help when he discovered NM
delivering money to RS. The NGO after taking NM into confidence, got a First
Information Report (hereinafter F.I.R.) registered on 05/05/2014 in the nearby police
station (copy in that to the Cyber Cell of the Police). On preliminary investigation
during raids, the Police found that not only NM but at least two dozen more
male/female teenagers were victims in the same kind of act. Moreover, the alleged
accused were also found to be teenagers involved in the gruesome act for easy money.
It was also found post interrogation that the accused not only abused and blackmailed
their victims but also supplied their video files or photographs to a person, Jaidev,
(hereinafter JD) a citizen of Mumbai, where these videos etc. were actually uploaded
on free porn sites available for downloading in public domain. The investigation
reports also laid down that the main Kingpin in the aforementioned affair was Ms.
Saloni Kamra, (hereinafter SK) the current Women and Child Development Minister
of India and a sitting Member of Parliament. It was also found out that JD was a near
relative of SK and the latter happens to be directly in touch with JD. To nab JD
(through proper channels), the Police sought the help of Police Commissioner and got
the information through Home Ministry.
6. The NGO after somehow becoming aware of this investigation report and other
concerned information(s) passed on the information to a national newspaper
PATRIKA which in turn conducted a “Sting Operation” (hereinafter OP) on SK on
10/05/2014 in very complex circumstances and compiled its data in three various
Compact Discs (C.D.s).
Disc 1: Contained SK taking token money for a bribe from a reputed multi-billionaire
private tycoon active in many sectors in national and trans-national level and getting a
promise from that businessman for depositing the rest of the remaining amount in
"Swiss Bank" as directed by SK & JD.
Disc 2: Contained SK observing the transportation of few children from orphan homes
being transported to a third world country for prostitution etc.
Disc 3: Included contents of SK's 'private life' involved in natural/unnatural sexual
intercourse.
The channel thereafter broadcasted all the three discs on 12/05/2014. Following the
broadcast, almost all the News Channels in the Country aired the same news numerous
times and a huge hue and cry was raised by different sections of the society.
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED
7. On the basis of the telecasted NEWS by PATRIKA, the NGO went ahead and filed a
“Public Interest Litigation” (hereinafter P.I.L.) in the High Court of Rajasthan at
Jaipur for the same on 15/05/2014 and demanded SK's immediate resignation and an
inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter CBI) with a request that the
Hon'ble Court itself shall monitor the entire investigation as it was a very high profile
case. The Hon'ble High Court admitted PIL on 20/05/2014 and issued show cause
notices for the same to all the concerned parties.
8. SK, on the other hand, filed a case of Defamation against PATRIKA and the NGO on
25/05/2014 alleging her Right to Privacy enshrined by the Constitution of India and
pleaded that she is not guilty and that PATRIKA is in no way authorized to put on
Television, the news contents like the current one. NM, PATRIKA and some others
adduced evidence and provided material. The parties were provided with the
investigation report. SK, JD and RS denied the allegations and claimed the action by
the opposite party as private and malafide. They claimed damages for defamation. All
the concerned parties argued through their counsel and during hearings a large number
of persons attended the hearings in the Chief Justice’s Court.
8|Page
ISSUES RAISED
______________________________________________________________________________
The following questions have been raised before this Hon’ble Tribunal to consider:
WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE
9|Page
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
______________________________________________________________________________
WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE.
Firstly, the decision given by the Hon’ble High court was not proper and appropriate as the
hon’ble high court failed to give any proper and special reasons for the order and moreover
the conclusions of the high court are manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the evidence
on record. Therefore, the Hon’ble High court erred in misleading the evidence and the
records.
Secondly, the Hon’ble court erred while deciding on the basis of complaint which was Prima-
Facie does not constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused.
Therefore, Complaint may be quashed when a case is decided only on the basis of Prima-
Facie.
Thirdly, the Judgment of the Court becomes unsustainable when the Court awards
compensation at a very premature stage. It is required in the eyes of law that the Court shall
not arrive at a decision without proper scrutiny of matter.
Fourthly, when any offence has been committed in discharge of the official duty the
Legislature requires that before a Court takes cognigence of such offence, Sanction should be
accorded. However, in the present case the Hon’ble courts’ direction to government for no
sanction cast perverse shadow on the rule of law.
Fifthly, writ is not only issued against State but also against a Private Person. In rare cases a
writ can also be filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India if one’s fundamental rights
are violated. Broadcasting or Publication must not thwart the fundamental right of privacy
enshrined under article 21 on the Constitution of India.
____________________________
1
The Code of Civil Procedure
10 | P a g e
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
__________________________________________________________________
WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED IS MAINTAINABLE.
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Special Leave Petition filed before
this court is maintainable. It is a well settled law that when wrong application of a principle
has been made or important points affecting valuation have been overlooked or misapplied by
the High Court or Reference Court, the Supreme Court would, under Article 136 1 correct the
same.
In State of Madras v. Vaidyanatha Iyer Court held that in Article 1363 the use of the
words "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" shows that in criminal matters distinction
can be made between a judgment of conviction or acquittal. This Court further observed
that this Court will not readily interfere with the findings of fact given by the High Court
and the court of first instance but if the High Court acts perversely or otherwise
improperly, interference may be made.
In that decision, this Court had set aside a judgment of acquittal on facts as salient features
of the case were not properly appreciated or given due weight to by the High Court and its
approach to the question whether a sum of Rs. 800/- was an illegal gratification or a loan
was such that the High Court had acted perversely or otherwise improperly. From this
decision it is, therefore, clear that this Court in the exercise of its power under Article 136
of the Constitution of India is entitled to interfere with findings of fact that if the High
Court acts perversely or otherwise improperly that is to say the judgment of the High Court
was liable to be set aside when certain salient features of the case were not properly
appreciated or given due weight by.
_______________________________
2
Article 136 of the Constitution of India
11 | P a g e
PRAYER
__________________________________________________________
IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, PLEADINGS AND AUTHORITIES
CITED, THE COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT HUMBLY PRAYS THAT THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT BE PLEASED
RELIANCE OF HIGH COURT ON THIS STING OPERATION WAS BAD IN LAW AND SHOULD
BE SET ASIDE.
THE ORDER OF COST CUM COMPENSATION AT A “PREMATURE STAGE” SHOULD
BE QUASHED.
SANCTION FROM THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE TAKEN FOR
PROSECUTION OF SK.
AND/OR
PASS ANY ORDER THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE COUNSEL FOR
THE RESPONDENT AS IN DUTY BOUND
SHALL EVER PRAY.
12 | P a g e
