TEAM NO: 12
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
IN THE MATTERS OF
SUIT NO: 001/2021
Mr. A……………………. ………………………………………………………….PETITIONER
V.
Mr. B.……………………………………………………………………………...RESPONDENT
BEFORE SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE JUDGES OF HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THE SUIT BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF
MADRAS, IN THE MATTER OF MR. A v. MR. B, UNDER PROVISION SECTION 199 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
199. Prosecution for defamation.
(1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860 ) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence: Provided that where
such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic, or is from sickness or infirmity
unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local customs and manners, ought not to
be compelled to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave of the Court make a complaint on
his or her behalf.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, when any offence falling under Chapter XXI of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ) is alleged to have been committed against a person who at the time of such
commission, is the President of India, the Vice- President of India, the Governor of a State, the
Administrator of a Union territory or a Minister of the Union or of a State or of a Union territory, or any
other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State in respect of his
conduct in the discharge of his public functions a Court of Session may take cognizance of such offence,
without the case being committed to it, upon a complaint in writing made by the Public Prosecutor.
(3) Every complaint referred to in sub- section (2) shall set forth the facts which constitute the offence
alleged, the nature of such offence and such other particulars as are reasonably sufficient to give notice to
the caused of the offence alleged to have been committed by him.
(4) No complaint Under sub- section (2) shall be made by the Public Prosecutor except with the previous
sanction-
(a) of the State Government, in the case of a person who is or has been the Governor of that State
or a Minister of that Government;
(b) of the State Government, in the case of any other public servant employed in connection with
the affairs of the State;
(c) of the Central Government, in any other case.
(5) No Court of Session shall take cognizance of an offence under sub- section (2) unless the complaint is
made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed.
(6) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of the person against whom the offence is alleged to have
been committed, to make a complaint in respect of that offence before a Magistrate having jurisdiction or
the power of such Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence upon such complaint.
ISSUES RAISED
1. WHETHER THE SUIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SEC. 199 OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1988 IS MAINTAINABLE.
2. WHETHER THE ACT DONE BY THE RESPONDENT AMOUNTS TO
DEFAMATION
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
WHETHER THE SUIT FILED BY INCOME TAX AUTHORITY UNDER PROVISIONS OF
THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 IS MAINTAINABLE.
It is humbly submitted the hon’ble court that, there is a substantial amount of defamation is
involved in this case and sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code have been invoked, so
the petition is maintainable.
WHETHER THE ACT DONE BY THE RESPONDENT AMOUNTS TO DEFAMATION
It is humbly submitted before this Court, that the act done of Mr.B amounts to defamation of the
Petitioner.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
WHETHER THE SUIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SEC. 199 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1988 IS MAINTAINABLE.
It is humbly submitted the hon’ble court that, there is a substantial amount of defamation is
involved in this case and sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code have been invoked, so
the petition is maintainable.
WHETHER THE ACT DONE BY THE RESPONDENT AMOUNTS TO DEFAMATION
It is humbly submitted before this Court, that the act done of Mr.B amounts to defamation of the
Petitioner.
In State of Bihar v Lal Krishna Advani, the Supreme Court held that right to reputation is an
essential facet of an individual’s right to life. It is an integral and important aspect of dignity of
an individual. The wrong of defamation is to make a statement that injures the reputation of the
person to whom it refers and ‘exposes him to hatred, ridicule or contempt, or which causes him
to be shunned or avoided or which has a tendency to injure him in his office, profession or
calling.’ Such a statement must be published for it to qualify as a defamatory statement.
Reputation of a person would mean the opinion that others have of him Section 499 of the Indian
Penal Code states that ‘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, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.’
PRAYER
In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble
Court be pleased to:
1. The petition is maintainable
2. The act done by Mr. B amounts to defamation
AND/OR
Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience. And
for this, the Respondents as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.
(COUNSELS IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER)
