1877 Memo 5th

ROLL NO.
1877
ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, MOHALI - SEMESTER X

MOOT COURT, 2023
BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
IN THE MATTER OF
PREETI COMPLAINANT
V.
NEEL ACCUSED
(Writ) PETITION NO. XX OF 2022
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE
.UNDER SECTION 190 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, MOHALI- SEMESTER X MOOT COURT, 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................... 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................................... 3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ....................................................................................................... 6
SUMMARY OF FACTS........................................................................................................................... 7
ISSUES RAISED....................................................................................................................................... 8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .............................................................................................................. 9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................................. 10
1.1. That the Accused is guilty under § 66E of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 r/w S
354C of the Indian Penal Code 1860. .................................................................................................... 11
1.2. That the Accused is liable under Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000- ............................................ 15
1.3. That the Accused is guilty under Section 72: Punishment for breach of confidentiality and
privacy...................................................................................................................................................... 15
2. THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY U/S 500, 509 AND 292 OF IPC 1860. ......................... 17
2.1 That the Accused is guilty under Section 509 ipc 1860............................................................. 20
2.2 That the Accused is guilty under Section 292 of IPC 1860. ..................................................... 21
PRAYER .................................................................................................................................................. 24
[i]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
§ Section
& And
¶ Paragraph
A.I. R All India Reporter
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Bom Bombay
CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
Ed. Edition
Hon’ble Hon’ble
ILR Indian Law Reports
IPC Indian Penal Code, 1860
NGO National Governmental Organization
No. Number
Ors. Others
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Supp Supplementary
U.P. Uttar Pradesh
v. Versus
Vol. Volume
[ii]
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES REFERRED:
 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000

 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872.
 INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950.
 THE INDECENT REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1986
BOOKS REFERRED
 1 S. N. MISHRA, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, (21ST ED. 2019).

 1 KUMUD DESAI, INDIAN LAW OF MARRIAGE & DIVORCE, 2008 134-44
(7TH ED. 2008).
 1 PROF. S. R. BHANSALI, LAW RELATIONS TO HUMAN RIGHTS, 2013 547-
666 (1st ed. 2013).
 1 SURENDRA MALIK &SUDEEP MALIK, LAW OF EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
449-89 (2nd ed.2012).
 2 DURGA DAS BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 59-65, 77-
91 (14th ed.2017).
 2 RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 2054-129 (26th ed.
2007).
 2 SARKAR, LAW OF EVIDENCE, 1973 1891-92 (16th ed. 2008).
 3 WOODROFFROFFE & AMIR ALI, LAW OF EVIDENCE, 1872 4368-69 (20th
ed. 2017).
REPORTS AND JOURNAL
 Ijlsi.Com, 2023, https://www.ijlsi.com/wp-content/uploads/Cyber-Laws-on-

Prevention-of-Cyber-Crime.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2023.
 Argus-P.Com, 2023, https://www.argus-
p.com/uploads/blog_article/download/1582008575_cyber-crimes-in-the-ipc-and-it-
act---an-uneasy-co-existence.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2023.
 "The ". Mondaq.Com, 2023, https://www.mondaq.com/india/libel--
defamation/346258/the-single-publication-rule-of-defamation-on-social-
[iii]
networking-websites. Accessed 4 May 2023.
 Ili.Ac.In, 2023, https://ili.ac.in/pdf/paper10.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2023.
 Ijcrt.Org, 2023, https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2102371.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2023.
 Ijrar.Org, 2023, https://www.ijrar.org/papers/IJRAR1944342.pdf. Accessed 4 May
2023.
 Kumar, Sanjeev & Priyanka,. (2019). CYBER CRIME AGAINST WOMEN:
RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND OTHER ISSUES. Thornhill, R. & Thornhill, The
Evolution of Psychological Pain, in Sociology and Social Science, Bell, R.& Bell,
(1989).
 Jeet, S. (2012). Cyber crimes against women in India: Information Technology Act,
2000.
[iv]
TABLE OF CASES
SNO. NAME OF THE CASE CITATION
1. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of AIR 2017 SC 4161

India and Ors
2. Manish Kathuria Vs Ritu Kohli C.C. No. 14616/2014
3. State v. Shailesh CRL.A. 1025/2018
4. R. Rajgopal v. the State of Tamil Nadu (1995) 1994 SCC (6) 632
5. Kalandi Charan Lenka v State of Orissa (2017), BLAPL No.7596 of 2016.
6. SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Jogesh Kwatra, CC No. 4680 of 2014
7. Lee v Wilson 1934) 51 CLR 276; [1934]
HCA 60].
8. Khawar Butt vs Asif Nazir Mir CS(OS) 290/2010
9. Mobashar Jawed Akbar Vs. Priya Ramani 1961 AIR 578
10. Kolla Veera Raghav Rao vs Gorantla Venkateswara Complaint Case No. 05/2019
Rao And Anr
11. Nemchand vs khemrajn AIR 1973 raj. 200
12. Ramkripal S/O Shyamlal Charmakar v. State of (2007), Appeal (crl.) 370 of
Madhya Pradesh 2007
13. 1996 AIR 309
Mrs Rupan Deol Bajaj & Anr v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
& Anr
14. Abhijeet J.K. v. State of Kerala 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 703
15. Ranjit Udeshi v State of. Maharashtra. (1965) 1 SCR 65
16. R v Hicklin L.R.3 Q.B. 360
17. Prakash vs. State of Karnataka, (2014) 12 SCC 133.
18. In Mohd. Aman v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 10 SCC 44
19. Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra 1986 AIR 967
20. Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodkar v. Province of 1970 AIR 1390

Maharashtra
[v]
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE COMPLAINANT ABOVE NAMED HAS INVOKED THE JURISDICTION OF
THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE UNDER SECTION 1901 OF THE CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE CODE, 1973.
1
190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially
empowered in this behalf under sub- section (2), may take cognizance of any offence-
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;
(b) upon a police report of such facts;
(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been
committed.
(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub- section (1) of
such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.
[vii]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
SUMMARY OF FACTS
 Neel and Preeti – two teenagers from reasonably well-off families of Chandigarh, met in college at
Delhi and struck up a friendship. After 2 years when they were in the final year of their graduation,
they began a romantic relationship which continued through their two-year Masters’ degree.
 After the completion of their Masters’ course, they got good jobs at the same company in Mumbai.
As they were in a romantic relationship they decided to live together when they moved to Mumbai
for their respective jobs.
 Neel and Preeti were on a good track with their new jobs and a steady relationship. Sometimes
during their intimate moments Neel would suggest taking their photograph or a video to which Preeti
agreed.
 A few years down the line, a few weeks shy of Preeti’s 30th birthday she realised that both of them
have become busy with their jobs and have let their relationship go. So after discussion with Neel
she decided to break up with him. She told him that she has deleted all the intimate photos and
videos of the both of them that she has and that she expects the same from him to which Neel agrees.
She moved to a new residence and also started a new relationship. Seeing how quickly Preeti has
moved on from him, Neel started drinking.
 One night when Neel was returning from a bar late at night, he got mugged and lost his wallet full of
cash and his cell phone. He treated this incident as a wakeup call and started mending his ways.
 Preeti then got to know from one of her friends that her and Neel’s intimate videos and photos have
been circulating online. This news spread like wildfire through her company also and resulted in
embarrassment for her.
 Preeti filed a complaint with the cyber cell accusing Neel of releasing their photos and videos online
deliberately to malign her because she had broken up with him. Neel defended himself saying his
mobile was stolen so he cannot be made liable for a third person’s act.
 Argue from both sides using relevant provision of the IPC and the IT Act.
[vii]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE 1
WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF S- 65, 66E, 67, 67A, 72 OF THE

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) ACT, 2000.
ISSUE 2
WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY U/S 500, 509 AND 354C OF IPC 1860.
[viii]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, MOHALI- SEMESTER IX MOOT COURT, 2021
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF S- 65, 66E, 67, 67A, 72 OF THE

It is humbly submitted before the honorable court that the Accused himself had published the
Complainant’s private photos and videos so as to get his revenge from the Complainant from moving on
from him quickly after years of being in a relationship with him. The Accused was affected by the
breakup so much that he had started drinking and made an elaborate plan to publish the Complainant
and himself private photos and videos so that he could get back at her.
1. THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY U/S 500, 509 AND 354C OF IPC 1860.
Section 499 of Indian Penal code defines defamation as Whoever by words either spoken or intended to
be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any
person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the
reputation of such person is said to defame that person.
Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 criminalizes-words, gestures or any act which is done with
the intention of insulting the modesty of a woman. The acts that can be considered to be within the ambit
of this Section also includes-sounds, gestures or, exhibition of any object which is done with the
intention to be heard or seen, and which intrudes upon the privacy of a woman.
Sections 292, 293 and 294 of IPC have been enacted with the ulterior motive to protect and safeguard
the public moral by making the sale, etc., of obscene literature and publications in general, and to young
persons in particular, a cognizable offence. “Clause (1) to section 292 states that the publication of a
book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, figure, etc., will be deemed obscene,
[ix]
`ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF S- 65, 66E, 67, 67A, 72 OF THE INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY (IT) ACT, 2000.
1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that If a person believes that his or her privacy has
been invaded by the state by publishing his or her photograph in any way, he or she can file a writ
petition under Article 32 before the Supreme Court of India or a High Court under Article 226 for
the enforcement of his or her fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution. If the publication was made by a private body exercising a public role, such as the
media, the person can nevertheless seek enforcement of his or her right through the High Court
under Article 226.
2. To succeed, a Complainant must show that the publication of the photograph invades his or her
privacy and is not done in compliance with a legal procedure that is fair, just, and reasonable, as well
as for the protection of a broader public interest, or the ‘victims’ may argue that the images were
obtained by some type of hacking (or unauthorised access to a computer resource) and that any
viewer of such images may be believed to have known the photograph was confidential.
3. It is humbly submitted before the honorable court that the Complainant and Accused were in a
romantic relationship and were living together and had moved to Mumbai for their respective jobs.
The Complainant and the Accused were on good track with their new jobs and a steady relationship.
However during their intimate moments the Accused would suggest taking photographs or videos to
which the Complainant agreed. It is to be noted that the consent was given a few years back to the
present situation.
4. A few weeks shy of Complainants 30th birthday she realized that both of them have become busy
with their jobs and have let the relationship go. So after discussion with the Accused she decided to
break up with him. Thereafter she told him that she has deleted all the intimate photos and videos of
both of them and she expects the same from the Accused to which the Accused agreed.
5. Reasonably expecting the Accused to delete the photos of both of them, the Complainant moved on
to another relationship. Seeing how quickly the Complainant had moved on from the Accused the
Accused started drinking. It is to be noted that one day when the Accused was drunk and was
returning from a bar late at night, he got mugged and lost his wallet full of cash and his cell phone as
he claims so. However it is to be noted that the Accused took no such measures to report that his
wallet or his phone was stolen. He did not even try to find this phone as he should have taken
[10]
reasonable care and precaution because the phone still had the Complainant’s private photos in it as
he claims so.
6. It is humbly submitted before the honorable court that the Accused himself had published the
Complainant’s private photos and videos so as to get his revenge from the Complainant from
moving on from him quickly after years of being in a relationship with him. The Accused was
affected by the breakup so much that he had started drinking and made an elaborate plan to publish
the Complainant and himself private photos and videos so that he could get back at her.
7. The Accused was careless enough to let his phone get stolen and on the pretext of that shared the
photos and publish them online himself, but put the blame on the thief to avoid culpability. Had the
Accused been sincere and careful he would have reported the theft and the mugging of his wallet and
phone since it had private photos of both of them. Rather he went along with a concocted plan to
show the police that his phone was stolen and then later published the photos himself. Under Section
8 of the Evidence Act 1872, the conduct of the accused becomes relevant prior to commission of the
offence to establish his intentions.
8. Furthermore it is submitted that the Accused intentionally circulated their intimate photos and videos
online without her consent, which is violation of her right to privacy and reputation and violative of
section 354C, 292, 509, 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 66 E, 72 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000.
1.1. THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY UNDER § 66E OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
(IT) ACT, 2000 R/W S 354C OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860.
9. This section deals with the transmission of photos of “any person’s private area without his or her
consent.” For the same, the penalty is either three years in prison or a fine of not more than two lakh
rupees, or both.
10. The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal
Data or Information) Rules, 2011: According to these rules, entities holding individuals’ sensitive
personal information must maintain certain security standards that are specified.
11. Section 66E, IT Act, 2000: Whoever, intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits
the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent, under circumstances violating
the privacy of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or
with fine not exceeding Rupees two lakh or with both.
Explanation: For the purposes of this section,
[11]
“transmit” means to electronically send a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or
persons:
“capture” with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film or record by any means
“private area” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast
publishes” means reproduction in the printed or electronic form and making it available to public
“under circumstances violating privacy” means circumstances in which a person can have a reasonable
expectation that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of his private
area was being captured; or any part of his or her private area would not be visible to the public,
regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.
12. In a case where the victim consents to the capture of the images or any act but not to their
dissemination to third persons and where such image or act is disseminated, such dissemination shall
be considered as an offence under this section.
13. In the present case it was the Accused himself who had suggested that they take photos and videos of
them in intimate apps, Thereby he captured their private area and publish them in the electronic form
and violated article 21 of the Indian constitution for the Complainant dead by being liable under
section 66 E of information technology act, 2000. The consent provided by the Complainant was
years back and she had consented to keeping them in their phones and not disseminate it to the third
party. The consent was revoked when they had broken up and the Complainant had suggested that
they delete all their photos from each other’s devices. The Complainant had trusted the Accused on
this because they had been in a relationship for years, however the Accused had lascivious intentions
and wanted to take revenge against the Complainant for moving on so quickly from him.
14. The Accused in the present case was drinking a lot and acting carelessly and was run by the motive
to get back at the Complainant for moving on from him, thereby he took the opportunity of getting
his phone stolen and published the photos and the videos himself so that the Complainants new
relationship could suffer.
15. In the landmark judgment in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.,
1
the right to privacy was recently held to be guaranteed as a fundamental right and protected under
the Right to Life in Part III of the Indian Constitution. Sharing any content that violates a person’s
privacy is consequently a violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
1
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No 494 of 2012; (2017) 10 SCC 1; AIR
2017 SC 4161.
[12]
16. The case of Manish Kathuria Vs Ritu Kohli,2 is of utmost importance as it was supposedly the first
case of cyberbullying that was reported in India where the case was reported by Ritu Kohli, the
victim against the illegal act of Manish Kathuria who stalked her on the internet via a social media
chatting website often misusing her name to invite individuals to chat with him using obscene and
offensive language for them as a result of which the victim started receiving calls from different
states including foreign countries, talking to her in a salacious manner. Her case was filed by the
Delhi police under section 509 of IPC for insulting a women’s modesty by means of words and
actions and also for misusing her identity for own selfish needs. This law brought an Amendment to
the Information Technology Act under section 66E because section 509 of IPC could not deal with
such cases.3
17. Distributing of images of a woman engaged in a private act where she has a general expectation of
not being observed, taken without consent is considered voyeurism under Section 354C of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC). Section 66E of this Act provides for punishment in cases of violation of privacy.
It states that any act by a person who, knowingly or unknowingly, without consent, takes a
photograph of the private areas of a person, or sends such a photograph to someone else or publishes
such a photograph, under circumstances which violate the person’s privacy, will be considered a
crime. ‘Circumstances violating privacy’ under the IT Act constitute those circumstances in which a
person is disrobing without being captured or has a reasonable expectation that their private areas
will not be seen by the public.
18. Such acts can be punished with imprisonment which may extend upto 3 years and the person may be
liable to pay fine of up to two lakhs.
19. Section 354C Voyeurism states that Any man who watches, or captures the image of, a woman
engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being
observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator or
disseminates such image shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either
description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years,
and shall also be liable to fine, and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with
imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may
2
Manish Kathuria Vs Ritu Kohli, C.C. No. 14616/2014.
3
News, Nagpur. "Circulation Of Private Images Can Amount To Invasion Of Privacy, Defamation, And Violation Of Right Of
Publicity: Adv Manjeet Kaur Matani - Nagpur Today : Nagpur News". Nagpur Today : Nagpur News, 2022,
https://www.nagpurtoday.in/circulation-of-private-images-can-amount-to-invasion-of-privacy-defamation-and-violation-of-right-
of-publicity-adv-manjeet-kaur-matani/07071521. Accessed 2 May 2023.
[13]
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

20. Explanation 2 to Section 354C of IPC states that Where the victim consents to the capture of the
images or any act, but not to their dissemination to third persons and where such image or act is
There are reasonable restrictions on the right to publication of photos, especially those taken without
consent. It entails that the act of discreetly filming or photographing someone, even if the person is
performing some action at a public place, without the person’s permission enables such a person to
sue for compensation disseminated, such dissemination shall be considered an offence under this
section.4
21. In the case of State v. Shailesh5 (2019), Justice Susheel Bala Dagar held that voyeurism is a
ridiculous type of enjoyment for men whereas it causes mental trauma to women. Such acts infringe
the Right to privacy of women and she feels unsafe in the places which are generally meant to be
safe for women. In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated the judgment of R. Rajgopal v. the State
of Tamil Nadu (1995) 6and stated that the Right to Privacy also employs the ‘right of being left
alone’.
22. In the present case the Accused had acted with evil intentions and malafidely published their photos
and videos so as to cause mental trauma to the Complainant before moving on from him quickly, and
make a new relationship suffered. It was the Complainant who had offered to break up with the
Accused, it is evident by the Accuseds behavior post breakup as you went into drinking that he was
very much upset and hurt by the ending of the relationship with the Complainant.
23. In the case of Kalandi Charan Lenka v State of Orissa (2017)7 the accused was charged for the
offenses under Sections 354-A / 354-D/ 465/ 469/ 506/ 507/ 509 of the I.P.C. read with Section 66-
C/ 66-D/ 67/ 67-A of the Information Technology Act because he threatened the girl, made a fake
profile in her name to sexually manipulate her and even published her obscene pictures because she
rejected his marriage proposal. The accused was found prima facie guilty in all the cases and thus
was convicted.
24. One of the most well-known incidents of voyeurism was the Delhi Public School MMS incident of
2004, which involved the creation of a pornographic MMS of two students of Delhi Public School in
a sexual act, and its illegal distribution as well as bid to auction on the website eBay India (then
4
Vaibhav Gaur & Shashwat Singh, Students, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Consent in Photography
https://www.nyayshastram.com/post/consent-in-photography
5
State v. Shailesh , CRL.A. 1025/2018.
6
R. Rajgopal v. the State of Tamil Nadu (1995), 1994 SCC (6) 632.
7
Kalandi Charan Lenka v State of Orissa (2017), BLAPL No.7596 of 2016.
[14]
known as Bazee.com). The Chief Executive Officer of the website was thereafter prosecuted under
various provisions of the Information Technology Act, as the IPC had not criminalized such acts.
1.2. THAT THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 67 OF THE IT ACT, 2000-
25. As per Section 67 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, whoever Punishment for
publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form. -Whoever publishes or transmits or
causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or
appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who
are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or
embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and in the
event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees. ]
26. As per Section 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act 1986, any person who
contravenes the provisions of this Act shall be punishable on first conviction with detainment which
may extend to two years, along with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees. In case of a
second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment for a term of not less than six months which
may extend to five years along with a fine not less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to
one lakh rupees.
27. In Janhit Manch & Others v. The Union of India: A Public Interest Litigation was filed to seek a
complete ban on pornographic websites. The NGO had argued that websites displaying sexually
expressive content had an adverse influence, leading youth on a delinquent path.
28. In the present case the Accused had acted with evil intentions and malafidely published their photos
and videos so as to cause mental trauma to the Complainant before moving on from him quickly, and
make a new relationship suffered. It was the Complainant who had offered to break up with the
Accused, it is evident by the Accuseds behavior post breakup as you went into drinking that he was
very much upset and hurt by the ending of the relationship with the Complainant.
1.3. THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY UNDER SECTION 72: PUNISHMENT FOR BREACH OF
CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVACY
29. Any person who, without the consent of the person concerned, secures access to any electronic
record, book, register, correspondence, information, document, or other material in pursuance of any
of the powers conferred under the IT Act, rules or regulations made there under, discloses such
[15]
material to any other person may be punished with imprisonment for a term of up to two years, or
with both.
30. Article 21 is available to all citizens of India as the fundamental right to life and personal liberty.
Article 21 also includes the ambit of right to privacy of women. The Complainant had entrusted the
Accused with their private photos only till the duration of their relationship and her consent was for
capturing such intimate photos and not disseminating them to the third party. The Accused
intentionally published the photos under the garb of getting his phone stolen so to avoid culpability
for his actions.
[16]
1.
2. THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY U/S 500, 509 AND 292 OF IPC 1860.
31. It is humbly submitted that, Cyber defamation includes both libel and defamation. It involves
publishing defamatory information about the person on a website or circulating it among the social
and friends circle of victims or organisation which is an easy method to ruin a women's reputation by
causing her grievous mental agony and pain. Although this can happen to both genders, but women
are more vulnerable. This occurs when defamation takes place with the help of computers and/or the
Internet when someone publishes defamatory matter about someone on a website or sends e-mails
containing defamatory information to all of that person's friends.8
32. Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution provides fundamental right to speech and expression. This right is
not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions that are mentioned under Article 19(2). The
Information Technology Act 2000 after its amendment in 2008 has provided for such reasonable
restrictions. These are in the form of powers granted to central or state Governments to issue
directions for interception, monitoring or decryption of any information through any computer
source located in India.9
33. Section 499 of Indian Penal code defines defamation as Whoever by words either spoken or intended
to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning
any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will
harm, the reputation of such person is said to defame that person.
34. In defamation cases, the publication of defamatory material is an important aspect that needs to be
established. The term "publication" refers to making the defamatory material available to a third
party, either intentionally or negligently.
35. In India, the definition of publication under defamation laws includes both oral and written
statements. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the civil laws recognize that publication can happen
through various mediums, such as newspapers, books, speeches, social media, or any other means of
communication.
36. To establish defamation through publication, the following elements need to be proven:
 The defendant made a statement, either orally or in writing, which is defamatory in nature.
 The statement was communicated to a third party, intentionally or negligently.
8
Ijlmh.Com, 2023, https://www.ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Cyber-Crimes-against-Women-A-Gloomy-Outlook-of-
Technological-Advancement.pdf. Accessed 3 May 2023.
9
Duggal;Pawan, Textbook on Cyber Law, Pg.no 13.
[17]
 The statement refers to the plaintiff, and is capable of lowering the reputation of the plaintiff in
the eyes of a reasonable person.
 The statement is false, unless it is related to a matter of public interest.
 The statement has caused harm to the plaintiff, either in terms of monetary loss, loss of
reputation, or mental agony.
37. If the above elements are established, then the plaintiff can file a defamation suit against the
defendant. The remedies available to the plaintiff include damages, injunctions, and other reliefs as
deemed fit by the court.
38. It is submitted before the honorable Court that there is fondant had started drinking and was very
disappointed because the Complainant had moved on from him into a new relationship. After years
of relationship, it was the Complainant who decided that they should end their relationship and that
affected the Accused negatively that he started drinking profusely. The fact sheet is silent about
when their photos and videos were circulated online. The Accused acted malafidely under the garb
that his phone and wallet had been stolen, and he took this opportunity to blame their photos being
circulated online on the thief. He circulated their photos online intentionally and published them
himself thereby making him guilty under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 so as to defend
the Complainant.
39. The very first instance of cyber defamation in India was recorded in the case of SMC Pneumatics
(India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Jogesh Kwatra10 - cyber defamation was reported when a company’s employee
(Accused) started sending derogatory, defamatory and obscene e-mails about its Managing Director.
The e-mails were anonymous and frequent, and were sent to many of their business associates to
tarnish the image and goodwill of the plaintiff company. The plaintiff was able to identify the
Accused with the help of a private computer expert and moved the Delhi High Court. The court
granted an ad-interim injunction and restrained the employee from sending, publishing and
transmitting e-mails, which are defamatory or derogatory to the plaintiffs.
40. Explanation 4 of Section 499 answers what harms the reputation. The explanations state that:
“Explanation 4.- No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation, unless that imputation
directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of the
person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or his calling, or lowers the
credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state,
10
SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Jogesh Kwatra, Order passed on 5th Nov’2014 in CC No. 4680 of 2014.
[18]
or in a state generally considered disgraceful.”

41. For the success of sue of defamation, following is required to be proved:
 Statement must be defamatory.
 The Statement must refer to the plaintiff:
42. If the statement is taken to be referring to the plaintiff, the Accused will be liable and it will be no
defence that the Accused did not intend to defame the plaintiff
i. The statement must be published:
43. It does not matter whether the publisher of the defamatory material intended to damage or injure the
reputation of the person defamed, or acted with reasonable care as held in Lee v Wilson.11
44. The Delhi High Court recently ruled in the case Khawar Butt vs Asif Nazir Mir, 12Nov,
2013, Justice Vipin Sanghi on defamation on the Internet. In this far reaching Judgment the Delhi
9
High Court rejected the Multiple Publication rule and adopted the Single Publication Rule for Libel
on the Internet.
45. Facts and Ruling in Khawar Butt vs Asif Nazir Mir Case the plaintiff instituted a suit for damages of
Rs. 1 crore and for a mandatory injunction against the Accuseds for defaming the plaintiff on a SNW
- facebook. The posts were published in 2008 but the plaintiff instituted the suit only in 2010. With
the rejection of multiple publication rules in the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Khawar Butt
vs Asif Nazir Mir13, law regarding the single publication rule in internet defamation has been settled
and brought in consonance with the international norms as well.
46. In Mobashar Jawed Akbar Vs. Priya Ramani14, The complainant Mr Mobashar Jawed Akbar, a
journalist turned politician, filed a criminal defamation case against Priya Ramani, a journalist, who
had accused the former of sexually harassing her. On October 12, 2017, an article titled To the
Harvey Weinsteins of the world by Priya Ramani was published in The Vogue, where Ramani had
shared her sexual harassment experience by her boss by mentioning him as predator. In October
2018, Ramani tweeted naming the complainant as the predator she had mentioned in her 2017 Vogue
article, and this triggered the former to file the against the later. Ramani was accused by Akbar of
irrevocably harming his exceptional reputation by propagating scandalous claims about him in print
media via tweets and articles on online platforms. After hearing and critically analysing the
11
Lee v Wilson, (1934) 51 CLR 276; [1934] HCA 60].
12
Khawar Butt vs Asif Nazir Mir,
13
Khawar Butt vs Asif Nazir Mir, CS(OS) 290/2010.
14
Mobashar Jawed Akbar Vs. Priya Ramani, Complaint Case No. 05/2019.
[19]
contention from both the parties, the Hon. District Court of Delhi acquitted Priya Ramani saying that
the statements made by her against the complainant were not defamatory
47. In Nemchand vs khemrajn15 it was held by Rajasthan High court that the publication be considered
defamation only when it decreases the reputation of someone before other persons.
2.1 THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY UNDER SECTION 509 IPC 1860
48. Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 criminalises-words, gestures or any act which is done
with the intention of insulting the modesty of a woman. The acts that can be considered to be within
the ambit of this Section also includes-sounds, gestures or,exhibition of any object which is done
with the intention to be heard or seen, and which intrudes upon the privacy of a woman.
49. An important note to be taken is that this provision criminalises intention to insult modesty and not
outrage of modesty. Outraging modesty, as given in Section 354 of the Penal Code involves assault
or the use of criminal force. Thus, if a comparison must be done, outraging modesty is a graver
offence than insulting the modesty of a woman.
50. Finally, through the case of Ramkripal S/O Shyamlal Charmakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(200716), the Supreme Court held that “the essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex…the culpable
intention of the accused is the crux of the matter”. Essentially, ‘modesty’ is understood as a woman’s
sexual dignity and autonomy that is acquired by their birth.
51. The intention of the accused is very important. It must be proved that the accused intended to insult
the modesty of a woman, especially since the word ‘intention’ is specifically mentioned in the
17
Section. In Emperor v. Tarak Das Gupta (1925), wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that
the sending by post of a letter containing indecent overtures to a woman can amount to an offence
punishable under Section 509 of the Penal Code, 1860. The right to sexual integrity, dignity and
autonomy is intrinsically linked to the right to privacy. Every woman has the right to self-determine
her bodily affairs and infringing on those can amount to the intrusion of privacy. Hence, the words
‘intrudes upon the privacy of women’ has been rightly added to this Section.
52. In the present case the Accused had complete intention to outrage the modesty of the Complainant
because the Complainant had moved on from him after years of dating and he did not take it well
and started drinking profusely and acted carelessly that even his phone and wallet got mugged. He
15
Nemchand vs khemrajn, AIR 1973 raj. 200.
16
Ramkripal S/O Shyamlal Charmakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007), Appeal (crl.) 370 of 2007.
17
Emperor v. Tarak Das Gupta, AIR 1926 Bom 159.
[20]
wanted to take revenge from the Complainant and published their intimate photos and videos online
to harm her new relationship and her reputation in front of friends. His Intention is also malafide
from the fact that when the Complainant asked him to delete their intimate photos but he still kept
them and broke his promise to delete them. This contact shows that he had no respect and no love
left for the Complainant and to take revenge from her he publish their photos online thereby
qualifying the essentials of section 509 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and violating her right to
privacy.
53. In the crucial case of Mrs Rupan Deol Bajaj & Anr v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr (1995), 18the
act of the accused of slapping the posterior of a female I.A.S. officer in a gathering consisting of the
elite of the society, when considered in the light of the sequence of events involving overtures,
words used and gestures made, prima facie amounted to commission of the offence under Section
509.
54. Section 509 is also important as it criminalises seemingly trivial acts like a stranger inviting a
woman for a bike ride (In the case of Abhijeet J.K. v. State of Kerala (2020)19, it was held that an
“act of affront to the decency and dignity of a woman cannot be considered as trivial in nature”).
2.2 THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY UNDER SECTION 292 OF IPC 1860.
55. Sections 292, 293 and 294 of IPC have been enacted with the ulterior motive to protect and
safeguard the public moral by making the sale, etc., of obscene literature and publications in general,
and to young persons in particular, a cognizable offence. “Clause (1) to section 292 states that the
publication of a book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, figure, etc., will
be deemed obscene, if,-
i. It is lascivious (expressing or causing sexual desire); or
ii. Appeals to the prurient interest (excessive interest in sexual matters);
iii. If its effect, or the effect of any one of the items, tends to deprave and corrupt persons, who are
likely to read, see or hear the matter contained in such materials. Clause (2) to section 292 holds a
person liable to punishment if he-
a. Sells, lets to hire, distributes, publicly exhibits or puts into circulation, etc., any obscene
material,or
b. Imports or exports or conveys any obscene objects for any of the purpose aforesaid;
18
Mrs Rupan Deol Bajaj & Anr v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr (1995), 1996 AIR 309.
19
Abhijeet J.K. v. State of Kerala, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 703.
[21]
c. Takes part in or receives profits from business in the course of which he knows or has reason to
believe that any such obscene objects were made for any of the aforesaid purposes
d. Advertises or makes known by any means whatsoever that any person is engaged in, or is ready to
be engaged in any act which is an offence under this section
e. Offers or attempts to do any act which is an offence under this section”
56. The provisions of sections 292 and 294 of the IPC would also be applicable for offences of the
nature described under sections 67, 67A and 67B of the IT Act. Section 292 of the IPC provides that
any person who, inter alia, sells, distributes, publicly exhibits or in any manner puts into circulation
or has in his possession any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, representation or
figure or any other obscene object whatsoever shall be punishable on a first conviction with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2 (two) years, and with fine
which may extend to Rs. 2,000 (Rupees two thousand) and, in the event of a second or subsequent
conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 5 (five) years, to
be accompanied by a fine which may extend to Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand).
57. The constitutional validity of section 292 was challenged in Ranjit Udeshi v State of.
Maharashtra.20 The facts of the case are that Ranjit D Udeshi one of the four partners, was the
owner of Happy Book Stall. All the four partners were prosecuted for selling Lady Chatterley’s
Lover, a book by D. H. Lawrence under section 292. Udeshi contented that section 292 was
infringing his fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It was held that article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is subject to the
restrictions enlisted under article 19(2). One of the grounds is public morality and decency. Section
292 dealing with obscene materials falls within this exception thereby addressing the issue of public
decency and morality. Therefore, section 292 is constitutional.
21
58. The earliest decision of House of Lords on obscenity was in the case of R v Hicklin wherein the
test of literary morality was laid down. The test is whether the matter in question tends to deprave
and corrupt those whose minds are open to immoral influences and into whose hands the publication
may fall. The Obscene Publications Act, 1857 which was revised in 1959 and further broadened in
1977 to include pornographic films is the major legislation in force on the subject.
20
Ranjit Udeshi v State of. Maharashtra (1965) 1 SCR 65.
21
R v Hicklin, L.R.3 Q.B. 360.
[22]
59. In Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodkar v. Province of Maharashtra,22 the court held: “What is
obscenity has not been characterized either in area 292 of IPC or in whatever other statutes. It just
restricts or punishes the mailing, granting, sending out, distributing and offering of the obscene
issues. It is the obligation of the Court to consider the obscene issue by taking a general perspective
of the whole work furthermore, to decide if the obscene entries are so prone to debase and
degenerate those whose minds are interested in impacts of this short.”
60. In Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra23, the Supreme Court held that the idea of vulgarity would contrast
from nation to nation contingent upon the principles of ethics of contemporary society.
61. In the present case the Accused had complete intention to outrage the modesty of the Complainant
because the Complainant had moved on from him after years of dating and he did not take it well
and started drinking profusely and acted carelessly that even his phone and wallet got mugged. He
wanted to take revenge from the Complainant and published their intimate photos and videos online
to harm her new relationship and her reputation in front of friends. His Intention is also malafide
from the fact that when the Complainant asked him to delete their intimate photos but he still kept
them and broke his promise to delete them. This conduct shows that he had no respect and no love
left for the Complainant and to take revenge from her he publish their photos online thereby
qualifying the essentials of section 509 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and violating her right to
privacy.
22
Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodkar v. Province of Maharashtr
23
Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra, 1986 AIR 967.
[23]
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, it is humbly pled and requested that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to adjudge and declare that:
 THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF S- 65, 66E, 67, 67A, 72 OF THE

 THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY U/S 500, 509, 354C bAND 292 OF IPC 1860.
And pass any such order, judgement or direction that the Hon’ble Court deemsfit and proper in the
interest of Justice.
For this act of kindness, the Counsel for the Complainant as in duty bound shallforever pray.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Sd/-
COUNSEL FOR THE
COMPLAINANT
[24]

1877 Memo 5th

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1877 Memo 5th

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1877 Memo 5th

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROLL NO.

ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, MOHALI - SEMESTER X

BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

(Writ) PETITION NO. XX OF 2022

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL

.UNDER SECTION 190 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................... 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................................... 3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ....................................................................................................... 6

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .............................................................................................................. 9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................................. 10

A.I. R All India Reporter

CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure

ILR Indian Law Reports

IPC Indian Penal Code, 1860

NGO National Governmental Organization

SCC Supreme Court Cases

U.P. Uttar Pradesh

 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000

 1 S. N. MISHRA, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, (21ST ED. 2019).

REPORTS AND JOURNAL

 Ijlsi.Com, 2023, https://www.ijlsi.com/wp-content/uploads/Cyber-Laws-on-

SNO. NAME OF THE CASE CITATION

1. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of AIR 2017 SC 4161

5. Kalandi Charan Lenka v State of Orissa (2017), BLAPL No.7596 of 2016.

19. Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra 1986 AIR 967

20. Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodkar v. Province of 1970 AIR 1390

THE COMPLAINANT ABOVE NAMED HAS INVOKED THE JURISDICTION OF

THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE UNDER SECTION 1901 OF THE CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE CODE, 1973.

WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF S- 65, 66E, 67, 67A, 72 OF THE

1. THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF S- 65, 66E, 67, 67A, 72 OF THE

extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

or in a state generally considered disgraceful.”

to adjudge and declare that:

 THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF S- 65, 66E, 67, 67A, 72 OF THE

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSEL FOR THE

You might also like