You are on page 1of 13

IN THE HONBLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF
Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj & Anr vs

(APPELLANT)
V.
Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr

(RESPONDENT)

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT


MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELANTS

KAMALJEET MEENA
Roll No:-68
Section -C

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. List of Abbreviations....................................................................................................3
2. Index of Authorities.....................................................................................................4
a) Acts, Statutes, Legislation
b) Books
c) Cases Referred
d) Webliography
3. Statement of facts.........................................................................................................5
4. Statement of Jurisdiction..............................................................................................6
5. Issues Raised................................................................................................................7
6. Summary of Pleadings..................................................................................................
7. Arguments Advanced...................................................................................................
8. Prayer for Relief...........................................................................................................

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
And
All India Reporter
Another
Article
Company
Corporation
Edition
Honorable
Justice
Indian Labor Law Journal
Law Edition
Limited
Indian Law Reports, Madras Series
Others
Private
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Cases
Supreme Court Reports
Durnford and East's Term Reports
Union of India
Versus
Volume

&
AIR
Anr
Art.
Co.
Corp.
Ed.
Hon'ble
J.
ILLJ
L Ed
Ltd.
Mad.
ORS
Pvt.
SC
SCC
SCR
TR
UOI
V
VOL.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I. STATUTES REFERRED

Indian Penal Code 1860


Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 (CrPC)

II. CASES REFERRED

Haryana v. Bhajan Lal


Veeda Menezes v. Yusuf Khan
Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police
Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra

III. BOOKS REFERRED

M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (6TH ED., LEXIS NEXIS BUTTERWORTHS
WADHWA, 2010) (2010).

IV.Webliography

www.manupatrafast.in
www.scconline.com
www.indiankanoon.org

STATEMENT OF FACTS
[PARTIES INVOLVED]

1).

MRS. RUPAL DEO BAJAJ .(APPELLANTS)

2).

K.P.S GILL (RESPONDANTS)

Events leading to dispute


1.

Rupal Deol Bajaj was an IAS Officer belonging to Punjab Cadre. On July 29, 1988, Mrs.
Rupan Deol Bajaj, Finance, lodged a complaint with the Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh
Union Territory alleging commission of offences under Sections341 342 352 354 and 509 of the
Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) by Mr. K.P.S. Gill, the Director General of Police, Punjab on
July 18, 1988 at a dinner party.

2.

In her FIR on July 28, 1988, Bajaj alleged that the humiliating slap was the culmination
of protracted harassment by Gill at a party attended by the Chandigarh elite. At one point, he
even crooked an imperious finger at her and said: "You get up. Come with me.'' She complained
to her host and subsequently, she approached the then Punjab chief secretary R.P. Ojha, governor
S. S. Ray's secretary and finally, his advisor, J.F. Ribeiro. Attempts to broker a peace 10 days
after the incident failed.

3.

Treating that complaint as the First Information Report (FIR) a case was registered by the
Central Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh and investigation was taken up.

4.

Mr. Gill being a high-ranking Police Officer the Chandigarh Police had neither arrested
him in connection with the case registered by the Police on his wife's complaint nor conducted

investigation in a fair and impartial manner and apprehending that the Police would conclude the
investigation by treating the case as untraced he was filing the complaint.
5.

On the said date, in the party of KPS Gill the accused around 10.pm walked across a
group of ladies and joined them. After sometime some of the ladies started leaving and going
into the house. The victim didnt notice that Mr.KPS Gill was misbehaving with them.

6.

KPS Gill then called the victim to talk about something. On realization by victim a out of
order behavior by Gill, she avoided going.

7.

After a while Gill reached out to her amongst the other ladies who were sitting together
and ordered her in an obnoxious manner to get up and come along. She resisted and turned back
and started leaving, when he slapped her back.

ISSUES RAISED
1) Weather the allegations constitute any of the offences mentioned?

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
1.The allegations did not constitute any of the offences

In the matter of mrs. RD Bajaj vs KPS Gill The judgment of the High Court was a well
considered and well reasoned one so far as it held that the F.I.R. did not disclose any cognizable
offence, that the allegations made therein being trivial attracted the provisions of Section 95 IPC
and that the allegations were improbable. He, however, in fairness, conceded that the last two
reasons canvassed by the High Court to quash the F.I.R. could not be sustained. Also there was a
delay n making the F.I.R for 11 days which wasn't acceptable.
The impugned judgment of the High Court was a well considered and
well reasoned one so far as it held that the F.I.R. did not disclose any cognizable offence, that the
allegations made therein being trivial attracted the provisions of Section 95 IPC and that the
allegations were improbable

AGRUEMENTS ADVANCED
CONTENTION 1
1.The allegations did not constitute any of the offences
The impugned judgment of the High Court was a well considered and well reasoned one so far as
it held that the F.I.R. did not disclose any cognizable offence, that the allegations made therein
being trivial attracted the provisions of Section 95 IPC and that the allegations were improbable.
The allegations made by the appellant Rupal Deo Bajaj were not true in reference of these
contentions :
(i) The allegations made therein do not disclose any cognizable offence;
(ii) The nature of harm allegedly caused to Mrs. Bajaj did not entitle her to complaint about
the same in view of Section 95 1PC;
(iii) The allegations are unnatural and improbable;
(iv) The Investigating Officer did not apply his mind to the allegations made in the F.I.R., for
had he done so, he would have found that there was no reason to suspect commission of a
cognisable offence, which was the 'sine qua non' for starting an investigation under
Section 157 Cr.P.C.; and
(v) There was unreasonable and unexplained delay of 11 days in lodging the F.I.R.

the above allegations constitute any or all of the offences for which the case was registered, we
first turn to Section 354 and 509 IPC, both of which relate to modesty of woman. These Sections
read as under:

354. Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or
knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine,
or with both.
509. Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any
sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard,
or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of
such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to
one year, or with fine, or with both.

Since the word 'modesty' has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code we may profitably look
into its dictionary meaning. According to Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (Third Edition)
modesty is the quality of being modest and in relation to woman means "womanly propriety of
behavior; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct". The word 'modest' in relation to
woman is defined in the above dictionary as "decorous in manner and conduct; not forward or
lewd; shamefast".

Even if it was assumed that Mr. Gill had outraged the modesty of Mrs. Bajaj still no offence
under Section 354 IPC could be said to have been committed by him for the other ingredient of
the offence, namely, that he intended to do so was totally lacking. No offence under
Section354 IPC could be said to have been committed by him for the other ingredient of the
offence, namely, that he intended to do so was totally lacking. The culpable intention of the
offender in committing the act is the crux of the matter and not the consequences thereof. He
urged that the culpable intention of the offender in committing the act is the crux of the matter
and not the consequences thereof. To buttress his contention he invited our attention to the
following passage from the judgment of this Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of
Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602.

The only allegation relating to the same is that Mr. Gill stood in front of Mrs. Bajaj in such a
manner that she had to move backward. From such act alone it cannot be said that he 'wrongfully
restrained' her within the meaning of Section 339 IPC to make him liable under
Section 341 1PC.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF


In the light of facts stated, arguments advanced, issues raised & authorities cited, it is humbly
prayed by the counsel on behalf of the appellant to adjudge and declare that
1)Declare that the allegations constitute no offences.
& pass any other order that it may deem fit, in favour of the appellant in the ends of Justice,
Equity & Good Conscience. And for this act of kindness the counsel as in duty bound shall
forever pray. All of which is humbly submitted.

DATE: 26th September 2016

ALL OF WHICH IS REPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

PLACE: New Delhi


COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
KAMALJEET

You might also like