Ramesh Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

S.V.COLLEGE OF LAW:: TIRUPATHI

MOOT COURT PROBLEM NO:-1 Academic Year 2015-16

Ramesh vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Jyoti is a freelance journalist who was residing with her mother and sister. On 27th January 2016 at around 8.30p.m., she was having her coffee at a popular Mahati Cafe House at Tirupati in Chittoor District of Andhra Pradesh.

Rama Mohan who was the Deputy Superintendent of Police at tirupati was having coffee at the same place. He found Jyoti fascinating and took three photographs. Jyoti instantly objected to this move. Rama Mohan told her that, she caught his fancy for clicking those photographs. She told him to delete those photographs at once otherwise remain prepared to face dire consequence as it amounted to eve teasing and she will report the matter. Rama mohan ridiculed her in public saying that “entire system is in my control and no one can harm me.” He left the place with those photographs.

She narrated the whole story before the TV9 News Channel” where she was an employe. Within an hour this news was telecast throughout the state. After telecasting it, she went to the police station on 28th January 2016 around 8.00 a.m. Where she gave her complaint which was registered as first information report with No.233/2016 under section 354 read with section 506 of the Indian Penal code. Investigation was completed and police filed charge sheet before Magistrate, Tirupati.The Judicial Magistrate of First Class took cognizance based on this. Aganinst this filing of the charge sheet, Rama Mohan approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

Ramesh was the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor. He was known as a strict disciplinarian and an officer with human touch. The crime rate at chittoor had come down 40% after Ramesh has assumed office. His term was extended in August 2015, on the request of a Member of Parliament of the constituency and also on public demand. He had become the most popular and the best Superrintendent of Chittoor. Since 2012, there were no cases of eve teasing filed in the District.

Rama Mohan was summoned by Ramesh, on 29th January 2016 at 11.00 a.m.Rama Mohan appeared at the SP’s office where he was made to stand and hold Mr.Rama Mohan today you will not be permitted to sit as you have polluted the environment. Ramesh reprimanded Rama Mohan for half an hour for which he felt offended, insulted and humiliated. The entire incident was witnesses by Sitaram and Seshu Prasad stationed as Police Constables at the SP’s office who entered into the room after hearing the loud voice of Ramesh.

Rama Mohan left the SP’s office and headed towards the nearest police station.At around 11.45 a.m he lodged a complaint against Ramesh which was registered as first information report under the Andhra Pradesh scheduled castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 (hereinafter referred as POA Act) . His major averment in the complaint was “I was insulted at the SP’s office in the name of my caste. The precise words in the complaint stated that the SP said ‘you have polluted the environment “which indicates the humiliation in the name of caste. Incidentally, he belonged to the Mala Dasari caste in the state. He further averted that Ramesh wants to harass him and used Jyoti his distant niece to lay a plot against him.

The investigation was commenced by the Police Sub-Inspector, Chakravarthy on 30th January 2016. However Chakravarthy commenced the investigation without verifying the caste certificate of Rama Mohan. Ramesh filed an application for anticipatory bail before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which was rejected on the ground that first information report has already been lodged. On 3rd February Ramesh was arrested and confined to his house by Chakravarthy. On 25th February 2016, Police submitted the report before special court established under the POA Act, 1989 directly. Special Judge took cognizance. Special court framed the charges under section 3(1) (vii), Section 3(1) (x) and section 3(2) (vii) of the POA Act. Prosecution filed an application of addition of charges under section 120B of Indian penal Code which was granted by the Special Judge.

Ramesh contended that the complaint against him was in order to injure his reputation. He also contended that he admonished Rama Mohan for his irresponsible behaviour as he has tainted the police department.

Special Judge Tirupati convicted Ramesh for the offences punishable under section 120 B and 166 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-

Ramesh was also convicted of offences punishable under section 3(1) (vii).Section 3(1) (x) and section 3(2) (vii) of the POA Act and sentenced him to imprisonment for term of one year. In the mean while, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh through the impugned judgment quashed the First Information Report No. 233/2016 as well as investigation stating that Rama Mohan was indicated by its own department for belonging to the weaker section of the Society. The State of Andhra Pradesh by way of special Leave Petition approaches the Supreme Court of India.

Ramesh filed an appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. His major line of contention was procedural lapses and essential technicalities. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh without considering the technicalities dismissed the appeal. Ramesh filed a special Leave petition which was admitted by the Supreme Court of India.

The Supreme Court clubbed both the cases and the matter will heard on 12th April 2016.

Submit oral and Written Arguments on behalf of both the parties. ANSWER

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Between Ramesh …….. Accussed Vs State of A.P ……. Defacto complaint

Written Aruguments submitted on behalf of the accused u/s 314 Cr.P.C

As per Atrocity Rule 1995 Rule No.7 the Investigation has to be conducted:

1. By the D.S.P In the present case the Investigation was conducted by S.I Chakravarthy. So, it is invalid in eyes of law. E.Seshaih Vs State of A.P 2000(2) ALT (Gl) 91 (AP). 2. The Caste Certificate of Rama Mohan is sine-Qua-Non to commence the Investigation. In the given case S.I Chakravarthy has commenced the investigation without verifying Caste Certificate is invalid. 3. As per Atrocities Act 1989, the special court has no power to take direct cognizance. Only the Magistrate has to make the committal proceedings. In the present case, the special court took direct cognizance of the case without committal is invalid. 4. Ramesh is a Police Officer when he was charged for the offences the prosecution must obtain sanction to prosecute U/S 197 Cr.P.C and it has to produced by the prosecution on filling of charge sheet. In the present case, the prosecution has not filed any document to special court. 5. As per Land Mark Judgment Toppan Das Vs State Single person cannot be convicted for the offence of Criminal Conspiracy. In the present case Hon’ble special court convicted the accused U/S 120B I.P.C is held to be invalid by virtue of the Judgment.

Prayer:- In the light of the above said contentions the accused prays this Hon’ble Court to set aside the lower court conviction.

Written Arguments submitted on behalf of the accused U/S 314 Cr.P.C

1. The prosecution has failed to file sanction to prosecute U/S 197 Cr.P.C while filing the Charge sheet. 2. The Obscene photographs taken by the accused was not produced by the prosecution during Trial.

Ram Mohan Vs State of A.P In the light of above said circumstances the accused prays the Hon’ble court to quash framing of charges against the accused. S.V.COLLEGE OF LAW :: TIRUPATHI

MOOT COURT PROBLEM NO: - 2 Academic Year 2015-16

Sandhya Vs Krishna Mohan

The Marriage between Krishna Mohan and Sandhya was solemnised on 1-1-2013 according to the Hindu Rituals and Customs in Tirupati. Krishna Mohan is working as a junior assistant in a Private Educational Institution in Tirupati.

His wife’s parents are residing at Chennai. Sandhya- wife of Krishna Mohan went to her parent’s house for delivery. They are blessed with a male child (Rambabu). After the delivery of the child, Krishna Mohan went to chennai to his in-laws house and requested his wife to come to Tirupati.

His wife asked Krishna Mohan to join her parental house and refuses to husband’s request to live with him in the matrimonial home as her Mother alone residing in Chennai and her Father living in Satsang Ashramam in Avadi and without taking care of her mother. Her father is a retired Central Government employee and getting Rs.20,000/- pension. Out of the total amount of the pension, he used to give Rs.15, 000/- monthly to his wife.

Krishna Mohan never liked to stay in wife’s parental home. He filed a petition before the Senior Civil Judge Court at Tirupati seeking a decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights alleging that the behavior of his wife is improper and she was not entitled to insist him to become a resident son in –law. The court granted a decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights in favour of the husband.

Aggrieved by the Order of the Court, Sandhya filed an appeal before High Court of A.P.

Argue both sides and submit written memorials/Arguments. ANSWER

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE - - ANDHRA PRADESH

Written Arguments submitted on behalf of the appellant U/s 18Ra r/w order 41 of C.P.C The appellants parents are at about age 65 years they are residing at Chennai she is in responsible to look after the parents hence she is unable to reside with her husband.

Written Arguments submitted on behalf of the Respondent U/s 18 Rule 3A of C.P.C

1. The grounds stated by the wife is unreasonable in Law. 2. There is no condition before the marriage that the respondent must be resident with Son-in-laws house. 3. The appellant is without reasonable cause she is trying to withdraw from the conjugal society. She is not entitled. 4. As per Land Mark Judgment V.Pothuraju Vs Radha AIR 1965 AP407 wife is bound to reside wherever husband resides.

Prayer:- The Respondent prays this Hon’ble court to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant.