TUSHTI- 12102312

SUBMITTED TO- MR. RAMANDEEP SINGH

1
 MOOT COURT MEMORANDUM, 2022

Before

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE MATTERS BETWEEN

MR. RAHUL……………………………………………… Petitioner

VS

MS. NAZNEEN…………………….…………………… Respondent

2
 ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………... 4
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………… 5
3. STATEMENT OF JURIDICTION………………………………………………. 8
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………... 9
5. ISSUES RAISED…………………………………………………………………... 16
6. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………17
7. THE PRAYER……………………………………………………………………... 22

3
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

 Paragraph

& And

Art. Article

v. Versus

No. Number

Ors. Others

SCC Supreme Court Cases

AIR All India Reporter

SC Supreme Court
Hon’ble Honorable

4
 INDEX OF AUTHORITY

S.NO. CASE TITLE

1. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, 1978

2.  Anuj Garg & Ors v. Hotel Association of India & Ors, 2007

3. Shafin Jahan v.  Asokan K.M. and others, 2018

4. Taj Mohammad v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1960

5
STATUES INCORPORATED

S.NO. STATUE/ARTICLE

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860

2. Code of criminal procedure, 1973

3. POSCO act, 2012

4. Indian Constitution, 1950

6
WEB RESOURCED REFERRED

S.NO. WEBRESOURCES WEBSITE

1. ipleaders https://blog.ipleaders.in

2. Times of India https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs

3. Indian kanoon https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117834652/

4. Live law https://www.livelaw.in

5. Lawyers club India https://www.lawyersclubindia.com

7
STATEMENT OF JURIDICTION

The Respondent has the Honour to submit the dispute to the Hon’ble court, the arguments for
the respondent under the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

The Respondent Ms. Nazneen approached Hon’ble High Court of Punjab& Haryana under Art.
361, Sec 503 IPC, Sec 3&4 of POSCO.

This argument sets forth the facts, laws and the corresponding arguments on which the acquittal
is based in the instant case.

8
STATEMENT OF FACTS

Ms. Nazneen aged 16 is a young and beautiful Muslim girl. She studies in 11th standard having
medical background. Being a laborious child since childhood she only concentrates in her
studies and she is not easily distracted by things happening around her. One fine day, the school
she was studying in, organized a science seminar and various eminent speakers were invited.
Mr. Rahul, a Hindu boy aged 28 years was also invited as a guest speaker because of his extra
ordinary achievements in the field of medical science. Ms. Nazneen, being one of the students
attended the seminar. Awestruck by Mr. Rahul’s amazing discourse and professional
communication skills and display of knowledge in the field of medical sciences. Ms. Nazneen
started considering him as her role model. Also, captivated by his charm and personality, Ms.
Nazneen in the wake of seeking guidance for further studies approaches Mr. Rahul. She

9
managed to secure his contact number through the pamphlets distributed during the seminar.
The very next day she calls him for guidance in the medical profession and also complemented
him for his extremely attractive personality and communication skills. Surprised by her
confidence in such an age, Mr. Rahul expressed his gratitude towards her compliment and
guided her efficiently for future endeavours in the medical profession. Soon Ms. Nazneen
started contacting Mr. Rahul frequently for one or the other reasons. The relationship of guide
and student soon turned into the relationship of friends followed by meeting for coffee dates,
going on long drives and sharing their secrets with each other and this went on for two months.
Suddenly, one day Ms. Nazneen confessed her feelings to Mr. Rahul. Mr. Rahul who was also
astonished by her beauty but was reluctant to take the first step due to the age difference
accepted her proposal happily. The friendship soon turned into relationship. The fact of this
relationship was no more a clandestine affair and Ms. Nazneen parents started objecting to this.
Ms. Nazneen with each passing day was getting determined to marry Mr. Rahul who was
equally supporting her in her decision to marry him. There were several attempts by parents of

10
Ms. Nazneen to make her understand about the adverse consequences of this relationship and
also warned her if she did not listen to them. However, all they had to face was a debacle. Ms.
Nazneen parents also threatened Mr. Rahul to stay away from their daughter but all went in vain
and one fine day Ms. Nazneen voluntarily eloped with Mr. Rahul. Both of them directly went to
the temple and solemnized their marriage according to Hindu ceremony. Sensing the threat to
their life from Ms. Nazneen’s family, the couple sought legal advice. Their counsel Mr. Batra
advised them to file a writ petition under Article 226 read with Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution in the judicature of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The case was listed,
and the matter was called up for hearing. Mr. Batra appearing for the petitioners argued before
the Hon’ble High Court seeking directions from the Hon’ble High Court to concerned
Superintendent of Police as he pleaded that if the relief is not granted the couple might become
the victim of Honour Killing. In his petition, Mr. Batra attached the photographs of their
marriage that were taken during their marriage ceremony in the temple. He further contended
that Ms. Nazneen who was one of the petitioners in the present case is a Muslim girl governed

11
by Muslim Personal Law and in Muslim Law, Puberty and Majority are one and the same thing
and it is a presumption that a person governed by Muslim Law attains majority at the age of 15
years since Ms. Nazneen has crossed the age of puberty, she is free to marry any person of her
choice and there cannot be any sort of interference in her decision. Hence, they are validly
married to each other and are seeking protection. At the outset, the Court following the
precedent in the case of Yunus Khan v. State of Haryana opined the law is clear that the
marriage of Muslim girl is governed by the Muslim Personal Law, the Court further held that the
danger to the life of the couple in fact was real and being a constitutional Court addressed their
apprehension and passed the order issuing directions to the Superintendent of Police for the
protection of their fundamental right of their Life and Liberty under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution but without making any remarks regarding the validity of the marriage of the
couple. The Court further observed that merely because the petitioners have got married against
the wishes of their family members, they cannot possibly be deprived of fundamental rights as
enshrined in the Constitution, it being the grundnorm. The Court did grant the asked relief

12
without entering upon an exercise to evaluate the evidentiary value of the documents placed on
record. The Court also observed that this Order shall not be construed in the sense to not initiate
any action against petitioners, for violation of other laws, by them, if any. Alongside, the
Hon’ble High Court also granted the custody of Ms. Nazneen to Mr. Rahul. In pursuant to this
Order, the couple started living together. After six months, the couple started having persistent
arguments on one or the other things. These continuous arguments and this sore relationship
mentally drained Ms. Nazneen. Being frustrated with all this, Ms. Nazneen decided to return to
her parents who were any day happy to welcome her back alone. Mr. Rahul made no attempts to
bring Ms. Nazneen back which turned this marriage into a bogus relationship. Convinced by her
parent’s advice and realising her mistake , Ms. Nazneen decided to end this marriage and
thereby she along with her parents approached the police to register an FIR against Mr. Rahul as
she has now believed that Mr. Rahul took the benefit of her adolescence. 7 An FIR was
registered under Sec 361 and Sec 503 IPC, Sec 3 and Sec 4 of POCSO and Sec 9 & Sec 10 of
Child Marriage Prohibition Act. Following this FIR, medical examination of Ms. Nazneen was

13
conducted at a Govt. Medical College and the doctor gave his expert opinion that the possibility
of attempted sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out. Mr. Rahul came to know about all the
proceedings that were being initiated against him through a common friend and approached Mr.
Batra again for his legal advice to protect him against the penal consequences who in return,
filed on his behalf an Anticipatory Bail Application which was denied by the District and
Session Court. Thereafter, he moved to the Hon’ble High Court which allowed his Anticipatory
Bail Application. Mr. Batra on behalf of Mr. Rahul moved another Application under Sec 482 of
CRPC for quashing of FIR which was registered by the police on the instance of Ms. Nazneen
against him, before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The Counsel for the
petitioner pleaded that it was in pursuance of the Orders of this very Hon’ble High Court, that
the estranged couple were living together as husband and wife and he drew the attention of the
Hon’ble High Court to the fact that it was this Hon’ble Hight Court which granted the custody
of the informant (Ms. Nazneen) to Mr. Rahul. Submitting his final arguments, the Counsel of
petitioner, Mr. Batra pleaded that the FIR is liable to be quashed in the light of above Orders by

14
this very Hon’ble Court. He also questioned the charges that were levied against his client in the
light of above Orders. The Hon’ble High Court rejected the petition for quashing of FIR as it
relied on the fact that they had already in the above-mentioned Order made clear that the Order
granting the protection to petitioner was not meant to immune the petitioners from any legal
action that could be initiated against them for committing any offence under other statutes, if
any. Crestfallen and aggrieved by the decision, Mr. Rahul decided to challenge the Order of
Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India sensing the gravity of the present issue, in absence of any
particular legislation and also for framing the guidelines regarding the disposal of such cases
granted the petitioner a Special Leave to Petition under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution.
Notices were issued to the concerned parties i.e., State of Punjab and also the Union of India.

15
ISSUES RAISED

1) Whether the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana was justified in granting protection to
the estranged couple under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution or not?

2) Whether the Order granting the custody of the estranged wife to the petitioner immune him
from the subsequent offences, if any or not?

3) Whether the FIR against Mr. Rahul is liable to be quashed or not?

4) Whether the Hon’ble High Court under the shield of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
indirectly promoted Child Marriage and by passed any other special statutes?

16
5) Whether in such cases the personal laws take over or it is the special statutes that takes the
lead?

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

ISSUE: Whether the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana was justified in granting
protection to the estranged couple under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution or not?

It is humbly contended that the state is perfectly correct for granting protection to the couple for
protection of their fundamental rights that it right to life art 21. As it's the couple basic right to
live in free and secure environment and live there life peacefully without any undue influence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and detenue belong to Muslim
community and they are governed by Muslim Law. a In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration,
the Supreme Court approved the above observations. It held that the ‘right to life’ included the
17
right to lead a healthy life to enjoy all faculties of the human body in their prime conditions. It
would even include the right to protect a person’s tradition, culture, heritage and all that gives
meaning to a man’s life. In addition, it consists of the Right to live and sleep in peace and the
Right to repose and heal. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court gave a new
dimension to Art. 21. The Court held that the right to live is not merely a physical right but
includes within its ambit the right to live with human dignity.

ISSUE: Whether the FIR against Mr. Rahul is liable to be quashed or not?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the FIR against Mr. Rahul cannot be
quashed under Sec 361 and Sec 503 IPC, Sec 3 and Sec 4 of POCSO and Sec 9 & Sec 10 of
Child Marriage Prohibition Act as petitioner impel the respondent and he was not having the
authority from the parents of the girl hence he is liable under section 361. It also amounts to

18
sexual assault as per the section 3 and 4 of POSCO as respondent was functioning as minor here.
It also amounts to kidnapping under section 361of the IPC. In the case of Taj Mohammad v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, a minor girl named Ivy was in a relationship with the accused and
both of them were quite intimate with each other. The accused visited her father’s house during
Diwali and soon after this, the minor left her house. Later on, it was found that both of them
were sitting next to each other in the Railway Station. Here the accused was held liable for
kidnapping as the father was a lawful guardian of the minor girl, and all other ingredients
necessary for Kidnapping were present in this case.

ISSUE: Whether the Hon’ble High Court under the shield of Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution indirectly promoted Child Marriage and by passed any other special statutes?

19
 It is respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble court that in the present scenario that respondent
belong to Muslim community and they are governed by Muslim Law. The detenue has attained
the age of puberty and she is major as per Muslim Law. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
guarantees the right to life and personal liberty to every citizen. In Anuj Garg v. Hotel Assn. of
India, Supreme Court recognised the right of personal autonomy under Article 21. It was held that
it includes both the negative right of not to be subject to interference by others and the positive
right of individuals to make decisions about their life. Further, in the case of Shafin Jahan v.
Asokan K.M., it was held that the right to marry out of one’s own volition is squarely covered
under this Article. This infers that the decision as to when that person is ready to marry should be
left with the individuals only. Once the person attains the age of majority, it is mature enough to
make its life decisions. This threshold is recognized for purposes of granting voting rights,
assuming responsibility for illegal acts, entering into contracts, etc. A person has an inherent
fundamental right to marry at their own discretion any time after attaining the majority. Taking
away this fundamental right as a policy decision needs a cogent reason.

20
ISSUE: Whether in such cases the personal laws take over or it is the special statutes that takes
the lead?

It is humbly submitted that Personal laws are not laws in force. A similar interpretation of
Article 13 was carried out by Justice Gajendragadkar. According to him, the expression laws in
force has not been used in the “general sense”, and specifically refers to statutory laws. He
asserted that only those laws fell under the expression “laws in force” under Article 13, that
have been passed by the Legislature or other competent authority and until the personal laws
satisfy this test, they could not be included in the definition of laws in force. Thus, in other
word, he argued that since Personal laws in India cannot be considered as “statutory laws”, they

21
 could not be tested against Fundamental Rights under Article 13 of the Constitution. The
personal laws, thus, were outside the scope of Part III of the Constitution.

THE PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the legal precedents and principles cited; and in the light of the
provisions of the statutes applied and arguments advanced; it is respectfully prayed before the
Hon’ble Court that this Court adjudges that Mr. Rahul should be inculpate of all the charges and
pass any other order or relief that it may deem fit in the best interests of justice.

ALL OF WHICH IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

The Respondent

SD/

22
 ……………………

(Counsel for “Respondent”)

23