P- TC 50

AUMP NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

BEFORE THE HONB’LE HIGH COURT OF DELTA

IN THE MATTER OF

VIJAY ……… PETITIONER

VS.
STATE OF DELTA ……… RESPONDENT

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELTA

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 P- TC50

AUMP NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
• LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
• INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4-5
CASE LAWS 4
BOOKS REFERRED 4
WEBSITES 4
STATUTES 4
ARTICLES 5
• STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6-7
• STATEMENT OF FACTS 8-9
• ISSUE 10
• SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 11
• ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 12-23
• PRAYER 24

2
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 P- TC50

AUMP NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

& And

POCSO Protection of Children from Sexual Offence,

2012

J.J. Act The Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection

Of Children)
Act, 2015

IPC Indian Penal Code

CrPC Criminal Procedure Code

IT Act Information Technology Act

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Sec. Section

Vs. Versus

u/s Under Section

Hon’ble Honourable

HC High Court

Const. Constitution

Art. Article

Ors. Others

3
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 P- TC50

AUMP NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

INDEX OF AUTHORITY

Case-
Sr No. Case Citation

1 K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India AIR 2017 SC 4161

2 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597

3 Satish V. State of Maharashtra Cri. Appeal No. 161 of 2020

4 Madhu Limaye vs the State of Maharashtra 1978 AIR 47

5 Sundar Babu & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335

6 State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 AIR 604

7 State of Punjab Vs. Ramdev Singh AIR 2004 SC 1290

8 Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2019) 2 SCC 703

9 Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India AIR 2017 9 SCC 1 (SC)

10 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Baldeo Prasad (1961) 1 S.C.R. 970

11 A.K. Roy & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1982) 2 S.C.R. 272

12 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 S.C.C. 1

Books Referred-
1. I.P MASSEY ADMISITRATIVE LAW (9th ed 2017)
Website-
1. SCC Online

4
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 P- TC50

AUMP NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

2. Manupatra
3. Case Mine
4. Indian Kanoon
5. AIR
6. Legal Service India
Statute-
1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights Act, 1948
2. Protection of Children from Sexual Offence, 2012
3. The Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2015
4. Indian Penal Code, 1860
5. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
6. Information Technology Act, 2000
Article-
1. BN Srikrishna Committee; “A Free and Fair Digital Economy Protecting Privacy,
Empowering Indians”

5
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 P- TC50

AUMP NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner herein is Vijay. Under Art. 226 of Constitution of Indica, 1950

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 it 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 all 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 afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed

6
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 P- TC50

AUMP NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

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.

7
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 P- TC50

AUMP NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Prabhas was a successful graduate from an esteemed college of Delta State of Indica. Prabhas
was an active social worker in a NGO named “Safal” to give voluntary services to the
downtrodden sect of the society along with his regular job at MNC of his city. The NGO Safal,
worked specially for the women and children in the rural and remote areas who are
deprived of their rights and privileges and who are unaware of the same.

After being associated for as long as 15 years with Safal, Prabhas became a prominent member
of NGO and was respected by the State Government for such noble contribution to the society.
At various conferences and functions, Prabhas was awarded and acknowledged for his noble
work which he did for women and girl child.

In the year 2020, he came across a girl, named ‘Gudia’, of 9 years of age in village Dalhousie,
of Delta State, whose parent’s complaint against an elementary school teacher ‘Vijay’ whom
they alleged of demanding bribe from the said girl and few more children of the said school for
admissions.

Eventually, Prabhas filed a case against the said schoolteacher Vijay for demanding bribe from
the students. Later, Prabhas came to know that the same teacher had molested three girls
including ‘Gudia’.

Thus, with the intention to pressurize the school authority, Prabhas posted the entire incident
of sexual assault done by the teacher along with details of the molested girls and the accused
schoolteacher Vijay on Facegood a social media platform. The post which Prabhas wrote gave
details about the names, class, division, school and address of the victim girls.

The Home Minister of Delta state took the cognizance on the post of Prabhas and directed the
Police authorities to register a case against the accused schoolteacher under section 10 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

8
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 P- TC50

AUMP NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Police in turn lodged an FIR against said schoolteacher Vijay under section 10 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 at Police Station Dalhousie based on said post on
Facegood.

The Child Welfare Committee (CWC) ordered registration of an F.I.R. against Prabhas for
disclosing the identity of the victim of child sexual abuse under section 23 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Police Station Dalhousie registered a case under section 23 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against Prabhas.

Aggrieved by the registration of FIR against him, School Teacher Vijay also filed a Writ
Petition under Article 226 for quashing the FIR mainly on the ground that FIR cannot be lodged
based on social media report.

9
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 P- TC50

AUMP NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ISSUES

ISSUE 1:

WHETHER INSTANT PETITION FILED BY VIJAY IS MAINTAINABLE?

ISSUE 2:

WHETHER VIJAY IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 10 OF POCSO ACT, 2012?

ISSUE 3:

WHETHER FIR REGISTERED BY THE STATE OF DELTA SHOULD BE QUASHED?

ISSUE 4:

WHETHER SOCIAL MEDIA POST BY PRABHAS IS VIOLATIVE AND ILLEGAL?

10
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 P- TC50

AUMP NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue 1: Whether the instant petition filed by Vijay is maintainable?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Delta that the instant petition filed by
Vijay is maintainable because the State of Delta has acted in a manifestly arbitrary manner,
and the acts of Prabhas are disproportionate to that of what was required.

Issue2: Whether Vijay is liable under section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012?

It is humbly submitted before the High Court of Delta that Vijay should not be charged under
Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, as Section 10 of POCSO
Act gives punishment for aggravated sexual assault and in the present case Vijay has not
committed the offence in question i.e., sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault.

Issue 3: Whether FIR filed by the State against Vijay should be Quashed?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Delta that FIR filed against the
petitioner should be quashed as the main intention of Prabhas behind posting a social media
post against Vijay was just malicious and it was meant only to trouble the petitioner. In order
to ensure that there shouldn’t be abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of
justice.

Issue4: Whether Social Media post by Prabhas is violative and Illegal?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Delta that the post published by
Prabhas on face good which revealed the name, address and other personal credentials of
Gudiya and other girls falls under the offence of POCSO act and moreover he used that
information without the permission of the family and published it on social media which is
violative of IT act.

11
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 P- TC50

AUMP NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

Issue 1: Whether the instant petition filed by Vijay is maintainable?

Ans. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Delta that the instant petition
filed by Vijay is maintainable because the State of Delta has acted in a manifestly arbitrary
manner, and the acts of Prabhas are disproportionate to that of what was required.

1.1. Acts of State is Manifestly Arbitrary and violative of Article 14-

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Delta that in the case of Justice KS
Puttaswamy Vs. Union of India1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “an act which is
manifestly arbitrary would be unreasonable and contrary to the rule of law and therefore
violative of article 14.” Here in according to the facts of the case it is clearly stated that social
media post on facegood posted by Prabhas contains the name and other personal details of the
two girls which is violative of section 23 of POSCO act as it states that “No reports in any
media shall disclose, the identity of a child including his name, address, photograph, family
details, school, neighbourhood or any other particulars which may lead to disclosure of
identity of the child”2. Police took cognizance through that Illegal post by Prabhas without
checking over the authenticity of the post, which in itself shows that the act of police of
registering FIR on the basis of social media post is manifestly arbitrary and therefore volitive
of article 14 of the Indian constitution.

According to the doctrine of proportionality “proportionality means that any action should not
be more drastic than it ought to be for obtaining the desired result implying that a cannon
cannot be used to kill a sparrow”3. If we refer to the facts of the case, we can find that Prabhas
found several irregularities in school administration and that one teacher named Vijay had
molested three girls. Prabhas tried to complain that to the headmaster but no action was taken.
But after this what Prabhas did is he posted seen incident on social media which is very
disproportionate. In this case if Prabhas’s complain was being unheard by the headmaster he

1
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161.
2
Section 23 of POSCO Act, 2012
3
I.P MASSEY ADMISITRATIVE LAW (9th ed 2017)

12
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 P- TC50

AUMP NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

must have approached other competent authorities such as board under with who is guideline
the school was functioning or either he can approach the police in that area. But despite of
taking the recourse to this proportionate method, he directly made Vijay guilty for the child
molestation and sexual assault by revealing everything in his report on social media. Further to
justify his disproportionate action we can also presume that Prabhas had a personal grudge with
Vijay as earlier as well he filed a case of bribery against Vijay on which no action has been
taken by the police. It was also held in the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India4 “fairness
and justice will follow if the actions have a rational nexus”. The rational nexus means the
logical relation between an action and effect,

Following above ground Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shayara Bano Vs. Union of
India5 signified as to what contribute manifest arbitrariness – “Manifest arbitrariness, therefore
must be something done capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining
principle. Also, when something is done which is excessive and disproportionate, such act
would be manifestly arbitrary”. We are Counsel on behalf of petitioner is of the view that
arbitrariness in the sense of manifest arbitrariness as pointed out above by us would apply to
negate act of Prabhas and State of Delta- “The Supreme Court has recurrently held that vague
provisions and decisions or orders must be struck down as being arbitrary and
unreasonable.”6

1.2. Petitioners Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 is Violated-

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Delta that Right to Life and Personal
Liberty which is given under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is being violated. Right to
privacy and right to be left alone at two rights among the innumerable right present under article
21. Right to Privacy of Vijay is being violated here by the Prabhas as he took recourse to the
disproportionate method by uploading all the personal data along with name and school of
Vijay. Since Prabhas is a very famous and prominent person therefore that post must have been
seen by thousands of people. As stated in the case of K S Puttaswamy Vs. Union of India7

4
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India; AIR 1978 SC 597
5
Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India; AIR 2017 9 SCC 1 (SC)
6
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Baldeo Prasad, (1961) 1 S.C.R. 970; A.K. Roy & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,
(1982) 2 S.C.R. 272; See Shreya Singhal v. Union of Indra, (2015) 5 S.C.C. 1
7
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161.

13
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 P- TC50

AUMP NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

privacy includes at its care the prevention and personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life,
marriage, procreation, the home and sexual orientation. Privacy also connotes a right to be left
alone in the instant case Vijay also has his fundamental right to be left alone which comes
under the ambit of his privacy. Further, Vijay did not consent to the provision of his name and
other personal data being posted on a platform having millions of users. This in turn makes
him and his family susceptible to being threatened and harassed, without even being proven
guilty. In the case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India this hon’ble court held that right to
privacy also includes “informational privacy which reflects an interest in preventing
information about the self from being disseminated and controlling the extent of access to
information” also, “an individual has a right to protect his privacy and no one has the right to
publish anything related to the other person without his consent regardless of the fact that
whether it is true or false, critical or laudatory, unless that information is a part of the public
records” It is pertinent to note that Vijay had never been charged for any offence previously
and his personal data was not part of any public record and therefore, It was material for
Prabhas to take the petitioner’s consent before furnishing such data and moreover, It is unjust,
irrational and arbitrary on the part of State Government to take cognizance on a social media
post that violates an individual’s right to privacy.

Furthermore, even If we consider the exceptions for processing of personal data provided in
present legislation, then they are problematic in nature. As per the Justice BN Srikrishna
Committee8, “Problematic Exceptions- personal data may be processed by the government if
it considered necessary for any function of Parliament or State Legislature. It includes
provision of services, issuing of licenses, etc. On the face of it, it looks extremely vague and
could lead to misuse.

• Allows processing considered ‘necessary’ for function of central and state govts.
• Allows processing of personal data for prevention of offense and ‘contravention of law’”

The right to privacy is also recognized as a basic human right under Article 12 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights Act, 19489, which state as follows: “No one shall be subjected to

8
BN Srikrishna Committee; “A Free and Fair Digital Economy Protecting Privacy, Empowering Indians”
9
Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Act, 1948

14
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 P- TC50

AUMP NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attack upon his
honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such
interference or attacks.” Therefore, we can say that right to life under article 21 was violated
of the petitioner.

Therefore, on the basis of all the arguments above we can conclude that present writ petition
under article 226 is maintainable as its scope is wide and expensive. In this, rights can issue for
enforcing of fundamental rights or for any other purpose. It is also used when some authority
has used his power in excessive to his jurisdiction and have acted arbitrary on his own.

15
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 P- TC50

AUMP NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Issue 2: Whether Vijay is liable under Section 10 of Protection Of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012?

It is humbly submitted before the High Court of Delta that Vijay should not be charged under
Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, as Section 10 of POCSO
Act gives punishment for aggravated sexual assault and in the present case Vijay has not
committed the offence in question i.e., sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault.

Also, the FIR filed against Vijay was only because of personal grudge which Prabhas was
holding against him. Which is evident from the matter of fact that Prabhas instead of reaching
out to competent authorities, went straight to Facegood and published the personal data of Vijay
making him susceptible to public scrutiny and criticism, which is evidently a mala fide
intention.

Further, as Section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012 “whoever commits an aggravated sexual assault
shall be punished with imprisonment for either description for a term which shall not be less
than five years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.”

Aggravated Sexual Assault has been defined under Section 9 of POCSO Act, 2012 sexual
assault done by a person of authority and responsibility.

As per the Section 7 of POCSO Act, defines “whoever with the sexual intent touches vagina,
penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of
such person or any other person or does any other act with sexual intent involves physical
contact without penetration, is said to commit sexual assault.”

As per this definition, the offence mainly involves the following ingredients: -

(i) Act must have been committed with sexual intent.

(ii) Act must involve touching the vagina, penis, anus or breast of child.

Or

Making the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person.

16
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 P- TC50

AUMP NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Or

Doing any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration.

In the aforementioned case, Prabhas did not even rectify or hear Vijay or even investigate the
matter on the face of it, it is a common jurisprudence in criminal matter as “Innocent until
proven guilty” Vijay is just under a miniscule presumption that there might be a possibility as
the girls and Prabhas being right, up to that put Vijay cannot be declared to have committed a
heinous offence as to that of aggravated sexual assault, even on social media.

And does not fulfil the required elements to commit the offence of sexual assault and
aggravated sexual assault as he had no sexual intent which involves physical contact without
penetration.

On the other hand, by the series of activities committed by Prabhas, we can presume that he
had a personal grudge with Vijay and he intended to defame him. As the Social Media posts
made by Prabhas has disclosed the personal details of Vijay along with the girls. Also Prabhas
accused Vijay for taking Bribe from the girls only because to damage his image in the public.

As per the Section 499 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - “whoever, by words either spoken or
intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any
imputations concerning any intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that
such imputation will harm the reputation of such person, is said except in the cases hereinafter
expected, to defame that person.”

As Prabhas via his Facegood post disclosed the entire incident along with the details of Vijay
and the three girls knowingly that it would attract the society ’s Focus and can damage Vijay’s
upcoming Career. On the basis of aforementioned actions, Prabhas shall be held liable under
Section 499 of IPC, 1860, for defaming Vijay.

Following above ground also clearly stated in the case of Satish V. State of Maharashtra10.

It is an appeal against the judgement, by which the appellant is convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 and Sections

10
Satish V. State of Maharashtra; Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2020

17
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 P- TC50

AUMP NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

354, 363 & 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Here, the informant lodged an FIR against
Satish, the appellant, for committing sexual assault against her daughter. As per the definition
of sexual assault, under Section 7 of POCSO Act, Satish had no sexual intention which involves
physical contact without penetration and had not fulfilled the major elements to commit sexual
assault. Keeping the above facts in view, the Court holds that the appellant is acquitted under
Section 8 of POCSO Act and he was only convicted under Section 354 of IPC, 1860.

Based on the above-mentioned sections and case, Vijay cannot be held liable.

18
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 P- TC50

AUMP NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Issue 3: Whether FIR filed by the State against Vijay should be Quashed?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Delta that FIR filed against the
petitioner should be quashed as the main intention of Prabhas behind posting a social media
post against Vijay was just malicious and it was meant only to trouble the petitioner. In order
to ensure that there shouldn’t be abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of
justice11.

It is humbly submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sundar Babu & Ors.
Vs. State of Tamil Nadu12 and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal13 has issued some important
guidelines as to the grounds and conditions for quashing of an FIR under Section 482 CrPC.
These grounds are-

• Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
• Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
• 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
accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

According to the facts of the case, the illegal social media post posted by Prabhas contained
only the minute information of the girls who were alleged to being the victim of sexual assault
by an elementary school teacher Vijay and the details about Vijay. It doesn’t contain any
evidence or material fact which could Prima Facie at its face value could reveal the commission
of an offence. Due to this lack of evidence and material fact the allegations made are so absurd
and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can reach a just conclusion

11
Madhu Limaye vs the State of Maharashtra; 1978 AIR 47
12
Sundar Babu & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu; 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335
13
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal; 1992 AIR 604

19
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 P- TC50

AUMP NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Vijay. Furthermore, it is also alleged
by the counsel on behalf of Petitioner that Prabhas as being the prominent activist of an NGO
has used his position and status to initiate a criminal proceeding with the mala fide intention or
ulterior motive for wreaking his vengeance on Vijay due to his personal grudge which he had
against the him. Earlier also Prabhas tried to prosecute Vijay in a bribery case but still no
charges were proved which developed within Prabhas a sense of personal grudge against Vijay
to prosecute him in a much graver offence than bribery. This is quite evident from the fact that
having the reputation that Prabhas had he could have gone to appropriate authority when the
headmaster of the school refuse to act. Instead, he took the matter to social media where he
made Vijay the culprit without even being proved one. This in itself is material to support the
argument that Prabhas had a personal grudge towards Vijay.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in its landmark judgment in Madhu Limaye vs the State of
Maharashtra14, has laid down some very important principles which modulate the exercise of
the powers of Section 482 CrPC by the court:

• The exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC for FIR quashing is not to be resorted to
if there is a specific provision in code to redress the grievances of the aggrieved party.
• Powers under Section 482 CrPC for quashing should be exercised sparingly and to ensure
the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.
• The powers under Section 482 CrPC should not be exercised for quashing against the
express bar of the law engrafted in any other provision of the code.

In the instant case there isn’t any specific provision in the POCSO Act regarding the quashing
of FIR to redress the grievance of the Vijay and no express bar of the law is laid down in this
regard. Moreover, as alleged above that Prabhas has abused the process of law to trouble Vijay.
Therefore, Counsel on behalf of petitioner submits that the FIR filed against Vijay should be
quashed.

14
Madhu Limaye vs the State of Maharashtra; 1978 AIR 47

20
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 P- TC50

AUMP NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Issue4: Whether Social Media post by Prabhas is violative and Illegal?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Delta that the post published by
Prabhas on face good which revealed the name, address and other personal credentials of
Gudiya and other girls falls under the offence of POCSO act and moreover he used that
information without the permission of the family and published it on social media which is
violative of IT act.

4.1. Prabhas post is violative of section 23 of POCSO act –

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Delta that according to Sec. 23(2) of
POCSO act provides that “no report in any media shall disclose the identity of the child
including his name, address, photograph, family details, school, neighbourhood or any other
particulars which may lead to disclosure of identity of the child”15. Proviso to this section says
that a special competent court may permit such disclosure of identity if in its opinion such
disclosure is in the interest of the child.

According to the facts of the case Prabhas has posted very minute details about the girl and his
family. Revealing such details of a minor girl of 12 year of age would defeat the purpose of the
legislature to make such offence as it would affect the life and career of the girl in future and
could also lead to Social Victimization or Ostracism16. Also, since Gudiya and other girls are
from village Dalhousie, of Delta state anyone could find or spot her by visiting their village.
Supreme Court in the case of Nipun Saxena v. Union of India17 stated that “Where a child
belongs to a small village, even the disclosure of the name of the village may contravene the
provisions of Sec. 23(2)”. This provision of non-disclosure of identity of a child is not only
stated in POCSO act but also in J.J (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. According to
the Sec. 74 of J.J Act, “No report in any newspaper, magazine, news-sheet or audio-visual
media or other forms of communication regarding any inquiry or investigation or judicial
procedure, shall disclose the name, address or school or any other particular, which may lead

15
Section 23; Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
16
State of Punjab Vs. Ramdev Singh; AIR 2004 SC 1290
17
Nipun Saxena v. Union of India; (2019) 2 SCC 703

21
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 P- TC50

AUMP NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

to the identification of a child in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection or
a child victim or witness of a crime, involved in such matter, under any other law for the time
being in force, nor shall the picture of any such child be published.”18 Therefore, the Social
Media post is violative of POCSO Act and J.J. Act.

4.2. Prabhas post violated of section 72 of IT act-

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Delta that according to sec. 72 of IT
act, 2000, if any person has access to any electronic record, book, register, correspondence,
information, document or other material without the consent of the person concerned and
discloses such electronic record, book, Register, correspondence, information, document to any
other person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years of
fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or both.

Here according to the facts, it is nowhere mentioned that Prabhas took permission from the
parents of the girls before posting their sensitive information in a public domain. As he was a
popular and prominent member of NGO and is also respected by the state government then it
can be assumed that he must be having a good number of followers on social media platform.
So, these facts can be clearly fitted in all the aspects of section 72 of IT act therefore we can
say that his social media post was illegal and violative of section 72 of IT act.

On the above stated ground, the counsel on behalf of petitioner submits that since the social
media post qualifies ingredients of both the sec. 23 of POCSO Act, sec. 74 of JJ Act and sec.
72 of IT act hence it is illegal and violative. Two days after posting of the social media post
Prabhas realised his mistake and made a statement that he was unaware that such minute detail
will attract an offence, such statement does not hold value in the eyes of law as ignorance of
law is no excuse and since Prabhas who is also a prominent member of NGO and is working
from last 15 years for the cause of woman and girl child, is not expected to deliver such kind
of statement. It is also alleged by the counsel on behalf of Petitioner that this act of Prabhas
was result of the personal grudge against Vijay as earlier also Prabhas filed a case against Vijay
on the charge of Bribery to which no action has been taken yet by the police. Therefore, to take

18
Section 74; THE JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2015

22
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 P- TC50

AUMP NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

revenge from Vijay, Prabhas tried to defame him on social media by posting such information
without any evidence making Vijay liable of an offence. Counsel here submits that Vijay is
innocent and this FIR filed against that social media report should be quashed as Prabhas did
this with malicious and ulterior motive fore wreaking vengeance on the Vijay with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge19.

19
Sundar Babu & Ors vs. State of Tamil Nadu; 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335
20
State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal; 1992 AIR 604

23
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 P- TC50

AUMP NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY REQUESTED THAT THIS HON’BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ADJUDGE AND DECLARE:

• THE WRIT PETITION BY VIJAY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED MAINTAINABLE

• THE FIR AGAINST VIJAY SHOULD BE QUASHED

• VIJAY SHOULD BE NOT CHARGED FOR AGGRAVATED SEXUAL

ASSAULT

HIS, PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL HUMBLY PRAY.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY

COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

24
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER