YASHWANTRAO CHAVAN INTERNAL MOOT COURT 4, PUNE
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(UNDER ARTICLE 134 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
IN THE MATTER OF:
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …APPELLANT
AND:
2. MR. RAJ MALHOTRA ... RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL on behalf of Respondent
1
[MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SR. NO SECTION PG. NO
1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 3
2. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 4
3. STATEMENT OF FACTS 6
4. ISSUES RAISED 7
5. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 8
6. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 9
ISSUE 1 9
ISSUE 2 11
ISSUE 3 13
7. PRAYER 15
2222222222222222222222222222221 1111111111111
2
[MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT]
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
ACTS AND STATUTES REFERRED -
The Constitution of India, 1950
Indian Penal Code,1860
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012
BOOKS |COMMENTARIES| DICTIONARIES –
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal The Indian Penal Code (35th Edition)
Gaur, K. D. (2023). A Textbook on the Indian Penal Code (8th ed)
Merriam Webster Dictionary
CASES REFERRED-
Maharashtra v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi, 2018 (SCC Online Bom 253)
Shafiq Ahmed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2016 (SCC Online MP 2294)
Vijay Beniwal v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2019 (SCC Online Del 9061),
3
[MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT]
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is humbly submitted that the Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the CrPC,
invoking the inherent powers of this Hon'ble Court to quash the FIR and set aside the
proceedings initiated under Section 354D of the IPC
4
[MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THEREBY THE RESPONDENT HUMBLY
AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE HONORABLE
COURT
5
[MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT]
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Mr. Raj Malhotra, a 24-year-old man, is a recent graduate from Mumbai who is currently
unemployed and searching for a job. Ms. Priya Sharma, a 22-year-old woman, is a college student
residing in the same city. On 15th March 2023, at approximately 8:00 PM, Mr. Raj was present at
a local coffee shop in Mumbai when he noticed Ms. Priya Sharma who was also at the same
location. Mr. Raj found Ms. Priya Sharma attractive and decided to follow her after she exited the
coffee shop. Mr. Raj followed Ms. Priya Sharma for about 20 minutes, maintaining a certain
distance as she moved through various streets in the locality. During this time, Mr. Raj did not
approach Ms. Priya Sharma or attempt to engage in any verbal communication with her. Victim
became aware that she was being followed by Mr. Raj. Feeling uncomfortable and threatened, she
decided to take precautionary measures. She deliberately entered a crowded area to ensure her
safety and made a phone call to her friend to inform them about the situation. Upon noticing that
Victim had realized she was being followed and had taken measures to avoid him, Mr. Raj chose
to stop following her. He did not attempt to make any further contact with Ms. Priya Sharma and
returned to his home. On 16th March 2023, the day after the incident, Ms. Priya Sharma reported
the matter to the local police, stating that she had been followed by Mr. Raj and felt threatened by
his actions. Based on Ms. Priya Sharma’s complaint, the police registered a case under Section
354D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which criminalizes the act of stalking.
Mr. Raj was subsequently arrested by the police on charges of stalking. Mr. Raj’s defence argues
that his actions do not amount to stalking as defined under Section 354D, emphasizing that it was
a one-time incident without repeated behavior or any overt attempts to contact Ms. Priya Sharma.
The defence also refers to a recent Bombay High Court ruling, which held that following a woman
on a single occasion does not necessarily constitute stalking unless accompanied by repeated or
harassing behavior
6
[MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT]
ISSUES RAISED
_____________________________________________________________________________
ISSUE I:
WHETHER THE ACT OF FOLLOWING VICTIM BY MR. RAJ MALHOTRA
CONSTITUTES STALKING UNDER SECTION 354 D OF THE INDIAN PENAL
CODE?
_____________________________________________________________________________
ISSUE II:
WHETHER THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 354 D
APPLIES TO MR. RAJ’s CASE?
_____________________________________________________________________________
ISSUE III:
THE SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF SECTION 354 D IN PROTECTING
INDIVIDUALS FROM UNWANTED ATTENTION
_____________________________________________________________________________
7
[MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT]
SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS
ISSUE I
WHETHER THE ACT OF FOLLOWING VICTIM BY MR. RAJ MALHOTRA
CONSTITUTES STALKING UNDER SECTION 354 D OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE?
It is respectfully stated that following the victim for approximately 20 minutes across multiple
streets, without any indication of consent, resulted in her experiencing fear, distress, and
discomfort. Section 354D criminalizes actions that infringe upon an individual's sense of safety
and privacy.
ISSUE II
WHETHER THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 354 D
APPLIES TO MR. RAJ’s CASE?
It is respectfully submitted that the Bombay High Court's interpretation of Section 354D, which
states that "following a girl only once will not amount to stalking," should not be applied
universally. The focus should be on the impact on the victim rather than the frequency of the act,
ensuring that the law is interpreted in a manner that upholds its protective intent.It is respectfully
submitted that Mrs. J qualifies to be recognized as the legal representative of deceased Mr. X under
Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Since Mrs. J is the rightful legal heir and
representative of Mr. X, she is entitled to be substituted in his place in the ongoing proceedings.
ISSUE III
THE SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF SECTION 354 D IN PROTECTING
INDIVIDUALS FROM UNWANTED ATTENTION
It is respectfully submitted that Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was enacted to
address the offense of stalking, with the objective of safeguarding individuals, particularly women,
from persistent and unwarranted attention. Section 354 D therefore, criminalizes instances where
a man follows a woman or repeatedly attempts to contact her despite clear indications of disinterest
8
[MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT]
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE I
WHETHER THE ACT OF FOLLOWING VICTIM BY MR. RAJ MALHOTRA
CONSTITUTES STALKING UNDER SECTION 354 D OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
1.1. It is humbly submitted that Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code defines stalking as 354D.
Stalking. --(1) Any man who-- (i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such
woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such
woman; or (ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic
communication, commits the offence of stalking: Provided that such conduct shall not amount to
stalking if the man who pursued it proves that– (i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or
detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of
prevention and detection of crime by the State; or (ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply
with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or (iii) in the particular
circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified. (2) Whoever commits the offence of
stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term
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 may extend to
five years, and shall also be liable to fine. Therefore, in gist, the essentials for constituting the
offence of stalking arei. unwanted and deliberate acts by a man in order to establish contact with
a woman; ii. clear disinterest of the woman; iii. repeated pursuit in order to foster a personal
relationship.
1.2. It is humbly submitted that the acts of the accused herein, as per the facts of the case, have clearly
constituted the offence of stalking against the victim. it is further essential to note here that, in
essence what amounts or constitutes the offence of stalking is 1. Mens rea - the intention to foster
a personal relationship with her, despite clear disinterest of the woman;
1.3. It is respectfully submitted that while the term "repeatedly" implies more than one occurrence, the
context and nature of the act are of paramount importance. In the matter at hand, the accused Mr.
Raj Malhotra followed the victim for approximately 20 minutes across multiple streets,
9
[MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT]
constituting a continuous series of actions within a single episode, thereby satisfying the
"repeatedly" criterion.
1.4. It is contended that the victim’s evident discomfort and attempts to evade the accused, Mr. Raj
Malhotra during the 20-minute period serve as clear indications of her disinterest. Despite these
non-verbal clues, the accused Mr. Raj continued to follow her, satisfying the requirement of
persistence despite a clear indication of disinterest.
1.5. It is humbly submitted that the legislative intent behind the enactment of Section 354D is to protect
individuals from unwanted attention that causes fear or distress. The accused Mr. Raj's prolonged
following of the victim, causing her significant discomfort, aligns with the harmful behavior the
statute aims to prevent, and amounts to stalking under section 354 D of the IPC.
1.6. Furthermore, while the Bombay High Court's ruling emphasizes the necessity of repeated actions
for constituting stalking, each case must be evaluated on its merits. In this instance, the prolonged
and deliberate nature of Accused Mr. Raj's actions distinguishes it from a singular, brief encounter,
thereby meeting the threshold for stalking under Section 354D. in this regard it is paramount to
mention the case of Sonu @ Mr. Rajneesh Tiwari and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another (2019),
wherein, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court discussed the applicability of Section 354D IPC in
cases where the accused's actions instilled fear or distress in the victim. The Hon’ble Allahabad
High Court emphasized that the victim's perception of threat and the context of the accused's
behavior are crucial factors in determining the offense of stalking.
1.7. It is further submitted and emphasized here that it is pivotal to take into consideration the
discomfort caused to the victim by the accused’s actions. Therefore, in such instances the Learned
subordinate courts ought to have stepped into the shoes of the victim and decided the case on
merits.
10
[MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT]
ISSUE 2
2. WHETHER THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 354
D APPLIES TO MR. RAJ’s CASE?
2.1. It is respectfully submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has clarified the legal
position on the fact that a single instance of following does not constitute stalking under Section
354D IPC, emphasizing the requirement of repeated or persistent behaviour. However, this is an
exception and not a conclusive generalised rule. It is submitted that each case shall be decided on
merits after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Herein, the accused Mr. Raj
Malhotra's actions involved following the victim for approximately 20 minutes across multiple
streets, which, in common parlance, is sufficient to instill fear and discomfort in any ordinary
person. The course of action taken by the accused, constitutes a continuous and deliberate course
of conduct rather than a singular, isolated act. Thus, this sustained behaviour depicts clear intent
of the accused to stalk the victim and more accurately aligns with the repeated or persistent conduct
envisaged in section 354 D of the IPC.
2.2. It is respectfully averred that Section 354D of the IPC was enacted by the legislature to
safeguard individuals from unwarranted attention that induces fear or distress. The accused Mr.
Raj's prolonged act of following the victim, which caused her significant discomfort, falls within
the scope of stalking is what the statute seeks to prevent. Therefore, applying the Bombay High
Court's interpretation to exclude accused Mr. Raj's conduct would be inconsistent with the
legislative intent underlying Section 354D and the actions of the accused has evidently caused the
victim severe distress and discomfort as well as instilling a sense of fear in her. Additionally,
applying this legal position in the present matter would more importantly be prejudicial and unjust
to the victim who has suffered mental distress, discomfort and fear, as a consequence of the
accused’s mala fide actions.
2.3. It is reiterated that judicial interpretations, such as the Bombay High Court's ruling, must be
applied contextually, and not universally. In cases where the accused's actions, though occurring
in a single episode, demonstrate a continuous and deliberate effort to pursue the victim, the essence
of repeated behavior is captured
11
[MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT]
The accused Mr. Raj's actions fall into this category, thereby satisfying the criteria for stalking
under Section 354D IPC.
2.4. It is argued that interpreting Section 354D IPC to exclude continuous acts of following from
its ambit would leave victims like this present victim without adequate legal recourse against
sustained harassment. The prosecution argues that the court should adopt an interpretation that
encompasses such conduct to fulfill the protective purpose of the statute.
2.5. It is contended that the victim's perspective and experience of fear and distress should take
precedence over the frequency of the act. Since, the victim reported feeling unsafe, distressed and
discomforted, the act of the accused ought to be considered stalking. The accused Mr. Raj’s
behavior cannot be treated as casual or incidental. The duration and deliberate following through
different streets, especially maintaining a calculated distance to avoid being recognised, indicates
premeditation, which goes beyond what the Bombay High Court ruling intended to exempt.
2.6. It is humbly stated that the victim's perspective and experience of fear and distress should take
precedence over the frequency of the act. Since Victim reported feeling unsafe and uncomfortable,
the act should be considered stalking. Accused Mr. Raj’s behavior cannot be treated as casual or
incidental. The duration and deliberate following through different streets, especially maintaining
a calculated distance to avoid detection, indicate premeditation, which goes beyond what the
Bombay High Court ruling intended to exempt.
2.7. In the case of Shafiq Rehman v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2020), the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh
High Court held that even a single act of following or monitoring a woman, if it causes fear or
distress in her, can amount to stalking under Section 354 D IPC. Therefore, the victim’s subjective
feeling of distress, discomfort and fear in the matter at hand, are pivotal in drawing the conclusion
that the act of the accused constitutes stalkin
12
[MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT]
ISSUE 3
3. THE SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF SECTION 354 D IN PROTECTING
INDIVIDUALS FROM UNWANTED ATTENTION.
3.1. It is humbly submitted that Section 354D was introduced as part of the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 2013 to address the growing concerns regarding the certain vices, especially
stalking, in public and online spaces. The primary intent behind introducing this amendment was
to protect individuals, particularly women, from acts that compromise their safety, dignity, and
sense of freedom3.2. Additionally, judicial precedents have upheld that consent for mutual divorce
must be free and continuing until the decree is passed, but a party cannot retract consent arbitrarily
if they have already benefited from the settlement terms. This position has been upheld in the case
of Jayashree Ramesh Londhe vs. Ramesh Bhikaji Londhe (1984), wherein the Hon’ble Bombay
High Court asserted that, in a joint divorce petition filed under section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, unilateral withdrawal of a joint mutual consent divorce petition is not permissible.
Similarly, in Meena Dutta vs. Anirudh Dutta (1984), the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court
held that consent cannot be withdrawn once given.
3.2 It is further submitted that Section 354D emphasizes protecting a woman’s individual’s
autonomy and freedom of movement. Acts like following someone without their consent, as in the
accused Mr. Raj’s herein interferes with this autonomy and instills fear and discomfort in the minds
of the victims, which can be detrimental to their mental, emotional and psychological well-being.
It is further submitted that the focus of this provision is on the effect of the accused's actions on
the victim, not just the frequency or duration of the act. Even a single incident that causes fear or
distress can fall within the scope of Section 354D.
3.3. In addition to the foregoing, Section 354D emphasizes protecting an individual’s autonomy
and freedom of movement. Acts like following someone without their consent, as in Accused Mr.
Raj’s case, interfere with this autonomy and cause fear, making the provision applicable. The
provision is designed not only to punish acts of stalking but also to act as a deterrent against future
incidents by setting clear boundaries for acceptable behavior in public spaces.
13
[MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT]
3.4. It further submitted that the accused Mr. Raj’s actions fall within the scope of Section 354D
as the series of acts done by the accused fulfill all the essentials needed to constitute the offence
of stalking. Moreover, the victim’s perspective is central, and victim’s feelings of discomfort and
need to seek safety clearly establish stalking. While limitations exist, it is averred that the Hon’ble
Court ought to appreciate the merits and facts of the case while interpreting Section 354D. Narrow
interpretations, such as exempting single acts from scrutiny, would undermine the law’s
effectiveness and embolden offenders.
3.5. It is to be stated that the provision must prioritize the victim’s right to feel safe in public spaces
over the accused’s defense of incidental or one-time conduct. The victim’s fear and distress
indicate that the act caused a significant intrusion on her safety. While proving intent or repeated
behavior may be a limitation, courts are equipped to use judicial discretion to assess the specific
facts of each case. Mr. Raj’s deliberate following of Victim through multiple streets for 20 minutes
is a clear indication of stalking.
3.6. It is therefore humbly stated that 354D has certain limitations, but its broad scope is adequate
to address the accused Mr. Raj’s conduct. By focusing on the victim’s perspective, the preventive
intent of the law, and the significance of a single act causing distress, the court can effectively
apply Section 354D to ensure justice and reinforce the protection of individuals from unwanted
attention.
3.7. In the case of Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2017), the Hon’ble Apex Court
emphasized that stalking, whether physical or online, violates a person’s right to live with dignity
and safety. Therefore, the law must be interpreted in a way that upholds the legislative intent of
protecting individuals from such behavior.
3.8. In the case of Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) this Hon’ble Court emphasized
the spirit of protective legislation, stating that laws like Section 354D must be interpreted broadly
to protect women’s safety and dignity. Therefore, on merits of the facts and the application of
judicial mind it is inferred that the courts ought to prioritize the legislative intent over technical
limitations when interpreting Section 354D
14
[MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT]
PRAYER
Therefore, in the light of the facts stated and arguments advanced, it is most humbly prayed and
implored before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, it may be graciously pleased to :
1. uphold the conviction of the accused Mr. Raj Malhotra under Section 354D of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, for committing the offense of stalking;
2. award compensation to the victim for mental distress and discomfort caused as a result of the
offense committed against the victim in addition to directing the appropriate authorities to
provide support and counseling to the victim;
3. saddle the costs of proceeding on the accused entirely;
4. pass any other order or direction that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant in the interest
of justice, equity and good conscience, all of which is respectfully submitted.
Hence, this Appeal.
For this Act of Kindness, the Appellant duty bound shall forever pray.
Respectfully submitted
Place: India
15
[MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT]
