PROBLEM AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE INTRA-BATCH MOOT COURT FOR

‘PROJECT’ COMPONENT UNDER THE SCHEME OF EVALUATION

4TH Semester B.A and BBA LL.B (Hons.), Batch 2022-27

INSTRUCTIONS
 Read the facts attached, and focus on procedural flaws and fallacies.
 Work on memorials for both sides – the State and the accused – with arguments
favouring the side and case las to support these arguments.
 Follow the sections of BNSS. Use the comparative table to see which sections of the
new Sanhita correspond to CrPC (since the case laws will all mention CrPC sections,
it is important to cross-reference to apply it in the new context)
 Form teams of two members (on your own) to work on the projects (memorials).
Each student must submit a copy of their own project, although the work will be
done in teams. One member has to prepare on one side (State) while the other
prepares for the opposite side (accused).
 The memorials will be the written component of the project, and the arguments will
carry marks for the presentation component.
 Each team will pick up chits two days prior to the competition to see which side is
assigned to them for arguments.
 Each individual student will be marked separately. The memorial submitted will be
marked for the written component (15 marks), irrespective of which side you get to
argue. Your own arguments will be evaluated for the presentation component (10
marks) – this means that one member of each team will be presenting on the basis of
the other team mate’s written work (memorial). Therefore, although your own written
work will be the basis of your own marks in one part (15 marks), it is important to
work as a team and come up with good memorials on both sides since the other part
(10 marks) depends on your teammate’s memorial being well researched. This is why
it has been left to yourselves to choose your teammates – choose people you can work
best with.
 Once the chits are picked, you have two days to prepare well for the assigned side,
before the arguments. On the day of the Moot, each team will have 20 mins (8
minutes for each speaker to present their core arguments, and 4 minutes for questions
and/or rebuttals).
  Therefore, prepare your most core arguments and supporting cases for presentation –
skip re-narration of facts and skip all the courtesies. Come straight to the point and
argue on law + cases.
 NOTE: Focus your arguments and attention on aspects of criminal procedure –
NOT on substantive criminal law;ie., look for procedural anomalies rather than
the nature of offences that may be revealed.

FACTS
In the jurisdiction of KumarakomPolice Station(PS) near Kottayam in Kerala, the torso of a
corpsewas discovered on 27th October 2023. The torso was found partially burnt, near the
bushes in an uninhabited area near the lake that runs through the District.One of the local
residents, Mr. X, approaches the police station @ Kumarakom, and provides information to
the Sub Inspector, based on which a FIR is registered.
On 28th October 2023, two legs were discovered in another nearby place, in the jurisdiction of
Kattakayam PS (Kottayam Distt), having floated downstream in the lake’s current. An FIR
was registered in the Kattakayam PS upon receiving this information.
In the city of Mulanturuthi in Ernakulam District – adjacent to Kottayam Distt., a person
named Ravi had been missing since 25th October 2023, and his father lodged a First
Information Statement in this regard at the Mulanthuruthi PS. The Police had been
investigating the missing case since then.
On 30th October 2023, the Supdt. of Police (SP), Kottayam District, passed information to the
SPs of neighbouring districtsthat some body parts have been discovered in different adjacent
locations falling under different police stations, and subsequently SHOs of all police stations
in the adjacent districts were instructed to see if any missing persons reports under their
jurisdiction matched the description of the torso and legs that had been discovered.
Upon this, the Officer investigating Ravi’s missing case (@ Mulanthuruthi PS) collected data
regarding the corpse and limbs, and discovered that the right leg had the same birthmark as
was mentioned by Ravi’s father as the identifying mark of his son. Although the torso and
limbs had been preserved well by freezing since their discovery, the damage and decay that
had already been caused by fire (to the torso), and by fish and decay (to the legs found in the
lake), prevented a perfect visual match. Ravi’s father later identified the birthmark from the
leg since that part had not been damaged per se, and a later DNA test also confirmed that the
body belonged to Ravi.
Upon this, the Mulanthuruthi PS lodged an FIR for the offence of murder, consolidating the
other reports from the other two PS under the new one. The team from this PS investigated
the case, and filed a Charge-sheet against 2 people – Aravind and Alan, who had prior enmity
with Ravi.The Police narrative is that the deceased Ravi was a former friend of Aravind’s,
with whom he had a significant fight and falling apart after Aravind allegedly lost around
INR 5 lakhs after making a chit-fund investment that Ravi encouraged him to
make.Apparently, the chit fund was instituted and managed by Ravi’s cousin, who soon
absconded with the money. Subsequent to this, Ravi and Aravind had a few spats which
apparently had been resolved by the interference of mutual friends and family. However, the
Police version is that Aravind continued to believe that Ravi had been a part of the conspiracy
that helped his cousin flee with the money. The Police say that on 25 thOctober 2023, few
witnesses saw Ravi being accompanied by Alan towards a car which Aravind was
sitting.According to the Chargesheet, Aravind and Alan had another set of arguments with
Ravi regarding his cousin’s whereabouts, and in the heat of arguments the duo struck Ravi’s
head with a heavy rock, killing him. They subsequently cut his limbs and head off the torso,
and disposed different parts in different places to make detection difficult. It was because the
fire died down because of rains, that the torso did not burn completely as expected. The legs
floating downstream to a populated area also went against the accuseds’ expectations of
currentflow – they had expected that the legs will float off to the sea or at least some place far
away. The head had allegedly been disposed in an unused well in an abandoned property near
Kainakary (another nearby place under Kottayam Distt). The Police discovered the head,
allegedly based on the information provided by Alan after his arrest, since he made a full
confession to the investigating officer (IO). The police also mention in the CS that they
discovered the car used to abduct Ravi, and the machete used to chop his body, from Alan’s
house after his confession. The CS was sent to the JMFC having jurisdiction
overMulanthuruthi, who took cognizance of the same.
Ravi’s father, Mr. Karun, approached the JFMC and filed a private complaint regarding his
son’s murder, seeking to add two more persons – Alex, and Sreeni – who are close friends of
Alan’s and Aravind’s. The JMFC examined Karun under oath, who deposed that all five of
them had been good friends until the fiasco with Ravi’s cousin happened. Apart from
Aravind who lost INR 5 lakhs, Alex and Sreeni also had lost around 50k each, in the same
chit fund investment. Although Aravind had the worst fall out with Ravi, all 4 friends
believed that Ravi was a part of the fraudulent chit scheme, and had harboured enmity with
him. Karun said that the Police failed to investigate into the roles of Alex and Sreeni although
Karun had stated to the IO regarded the background of their enmity. Karun said he spoke to
three other people who told him that they had seen Alex and Sreeni along with Ravi and Alan
on the night of 25th October, around 11.30 pm – this would be 2 hours after the alleged time
of Ravi’s murder, per the Autopsy report. The 4 people were seen speeding off in a car,
towards Kottayam. Karun deposed that he believes they were all together in the murder, and
later disposal of the body parts. Without examining the witnesses mentioned by Karun, the
JFMC felt it appropriate to add Alex and Sreeni as well to the list of accused, and issued
warrants for their arrest. The JFMC later committed the case, with the names of all 4 accused,
to the Sessions Court @ Ernakulam, which has jurisdiction over Mulanthuruthi. The Sessions
court heard both sides and framed charges under offences including murder, criminal
conspiracy, abduction in order to murder, and destruction of evidence.
In the meanwhile, aggrieved by the JFMC’s action, Alex and Sreeni approached the High
Court to pray that the charges against them be quashed.
At the same time, Aravind and Alan also request that the HC may quash the case against
them since there is no direct evidence that connects them to the crime. They also argue that
the Court at Ernakulam does not have jurisdiction since all body parts were discovered in
different parts of the Kottayam District.
You appear before the High Court of Kerala in the said case where the accused are seeking
quashing of the charges, and the State of Kerala is opposing it.

ISSUES:
 On jurisdiction – did the JFMC have sufficient jurisdiction to take cognizance? Can
the Sessions Court of Ernakulam try the case?
 On the procedure – was the JFMC right in adding Alex and Sreeni to the list of
accused?
 On confession – would the evidence stand even to go ahead with a prima facie case to
proceed to trial?
 Any other issue that you notice in the facts as given above. Please go through
additional reading on your own, to come up with additional points – for better
evaluation and score.
Arguments for the Accused (Aravind, Alan, Alex &
Sreeni) with Reference to CrPC Sections
1. Lack of Jurisdiction (Section 177 CrPC):

 The body parts were discovered in different police station jurisdictions within
Kottayam district. The FIR for the final murder charge was lodged at Mulanthuruthi
PS (Ernakulam district).
 We argue that the crime scene cannot be definitively established as it involves
multiple locations.
 The JFMC in Mulanthuruthi lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance under Section 177
of the CrPC as the offence (if any) was not committed within its jurisdiction. The
Sessions Court of Ernakulam also lacks jurisdiction to try the case due to the same
reason.

2. Improper Addition of Accused (Alex & Sreeni) (Section 154 CrPC):

 The JFMC included Alex and Sreeni as accused solely based on the private complaint
by the victim's father (Karun) mentioning their alleged enmity with Ravi.
 No investigation was conducted as per Section 154 CrPC to verify Karun's claims or
the statements of the four witnesses he mentioned.
 The JFMC should not have added them as accused without proper investigation and
evidence linking them to the crime.

3. Insufficient Evidence for All Accused (Section 202 CrPC):

 The prosecution relies heavily on the alleged confession by Alan. However, a

confession needs corroboration with other independent evidence as per Section 202 of
the CrPC.
 There is no independent evidence linking Aravind and Alan to the murder weapon,
the car used in the abduction, or the disposal of the body parts (except Alan's
confession).
 The burnt torso and decomposed legs in the lake hinder a conclusive visual
identification.
 The prosecution needs to establish a stronger case beyond just the confession and
circumstantial evidence.

4. Doubts Regarding Confession (Section 164 CrPC):

 The defense can raise concerns about the validity of Alan's confession under Section
164 CrPC.
 Was the confession made before a magistrate and recorded properly?
 Was the confession made under duress or coercion by the police?
 Was there proper legal representation present during the confession?

5. Alternative Suspects (Section 156(3) CrPC):

  The motive mentioned in the chargesheet revolves around the chit fund scam.
 Ravi's cousin, who absconded with the money, could be a potential suspect with a
stronger motive. The police haven't investigated this angle as mandated by Section
156(3) of the CrPC for non-cognizable offences.

6. Violation of Fair Trial Rights (Section 200 CrPC):

 The premature addition of Alex and Sreeni as accused and framing charges without
proper investigation violates their right to a fair trial under Section 200 of the CrPC.
 The court should quash the charges against them and allow for a proper investigation
before proceeding.

Additional Points:

 The defense can highlight any inconsistencies in the police investigation or the
timeline of events presented in the chargesheet.
 The defense can also argue that the prosecution's case relies heavily on circumstantial
evidence, which may not be enough for a conviction.
1. Jurisdictional Challenge:

A. JMFC Mulanthuruthi's Jurisdiction:

 Argument: The JMFC at Mulanthuruthi lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the

matter, as no part of the crime occurred within its territorial limits. The discovery of
body parts and other key events related to the offense (i.e., the torso, legs, and the
alleged disposal of the head) occurred in different parts of Kottayam District.
According to the principles of territorial jurisdiction under CrPC, the JMFC at
Mulanthuruthi cannot exercise jurisdiction unless a part of the offense took place
within its jurisdiction.
 Relevant Provisions:
o Section 177, CrPC: "Every offense shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a
court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed."
o Section 178, CrPC: Specifies situations where offenses are committed across
multiple local jurisdictions. However, in this case, there is no clear connection to
Mulanthuruthi beyond the lodging of the missing person report.

 Supporting Case Law:

o Purushottamdas Dalmia v. State of West Bengal (1961 AIR 1589): The Supreme
Court held that the territorial jurisdiction of a court depends upon the place where
the offense was committed. Since the body parts were found in Kottayam,
Mulanthuruthi JMFC had no jurisdiction.

 Case Law 1: Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (1999) 8 SCC 728

 Justification: The Supreme Court held that the place where the offense is committed
determines the jurisdiction of the court. In this case, none of the body parts were
discovered in Mulanthuruthi. Therefore, the JMFC had no jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the crime, as no part of the crime occurred within its limits.

 Case Law 2: Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennai (2004) 8 SCC 100

 Justification: The Court quashed the criminal proceedings because the alleged
offense was committed outside the jurisdiction of the court that took cognizance of it.
In the present case, since the discovery of body parts took place in Kottayam,
jurisdiction would lie with the courts there, not in Mulanthuruthi.

 Case Law 3: Bhura Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2008) 11 SCC 103

 Justification: The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of territorial

jurisdiction and held that proceedings initiated in the wrong jurisdiction are void. The
case suggests that jurisdiction issues must be resolved at the earliest stage to avoid
legal invalidity.

Conclusion: The Sessions Court in Ernakulam also cannot try the case since no part of the crime
occurred within its territorial jurisdiction. The appropriate Sessions Court would be the one in
Kottayam.
2. On Procedure – Addition of Alex and Sreeni as Accused:

A. Improper Addition of Accused Without Prima Facie Evidence:

 Argument: The JMFC's action in adding Alex and Sreeni as accused was erroneous
as it was done without sufficient material or evidence to suggest their involvement in
the crime. The only basis for their inclusion was the private complaint of Ravi’s
father, Karun, who provided unverified hearsay evidence.
 Relevant Provisions:
o Section 319, CrPC: This section allows a court to proceed against any person not
originally named as an accused if it appears from evidence that they were involved
in the offense. However, the JMFC added Alex and Sreeni based on Karun’s
deposition without examining the witnesses he mentioned or corroborating his
claims.

 Supporting Case Law:

o Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014 3 SCC 92): The Supreme Court held that the
power under Section 319 should be exercised sparingly and only if strong evidence
points toward the complicity of the person sought to be added.
o Michael Machado v. CBI (2000 3 SCC 262): It was ruled that vague and
unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient to add an accused. In the present case,
there is no direct evidence implicating Alex and Sreeni; their inclusion is based solely
on suspicion and hearsay.

 Case Law 1: Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka (2004) 7 SCC 792

 Justification: The Supreme Court held that vague suspicion and hearsay are not
sufficient grounds to add someone as an accused. In this case, the addition of Alex
and Sreeni as accused based only on Karun’s unverified statement is not legally
sustainable.

 Case Law 2: Sarabjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2009) 16 SCC 46

 Justification: The Court stated that adding an accused without proper evidence is an
abuse of the legal process. The JMFC added Alex and Sreeni solely based on
suspicion without any corroborative material, violating the principles laid down in this
case.

 Case Law 3: Ram Singh v. Ram Niwas (2009) 14 SCC 102

 Justification: This case further strengthens the argument that before summoning
additional accused under Section 319, the evidence must be sufficient to implicate
them. Karun’s statements do not meet the threshold to add Alex and Sreeni to the list
of accused.

Conclusion: The addition of Alex and Sreeni as accused was procedurally incorrect, and the
charges against them should be quashed.
3. Confession – Admissibility and Reliability of Alan’s Confession:

A. Confession to Police Officers Not Admissible:

 Argument: The alleged confession made by Alan to the investigating officer (IO) is
inadmissible under the law, as confessions made to police officers cannot be used as
evidence against the accused.
 Relevant Provisions:
o Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: “No confession made to a police officer shall
be proved as against a person accused of any offense.”
o Section 27, Indian Evidence Act: Only that portion of a confession made to a police
officer that leads to the discovery of new facts is admissible. However, in this case,
the confession about the body parts and the car does not conclusively implicate
Aravind, Alan, or others.

 Supporting Case Law:

o State of UP v. Deoman Upadhyaya (AIR 1960 SC 1125): The Court emphasized that
confessions to police officers are inadmissible unless corroborated by independent
evidence.
o Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (1966 AIR 119): The Supreme Court held that the
entire confession to a police officer is inadmissible, except the part that leads to the
discovery of a fact.

 Case Law 1: K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 655

 Justification: The Supreme Court held that a confession made to a police officer is
inadmissible unless it leads to the discovery of a fact. Alan’s confession cannot be
used as direct evidence against him or the other accused unless it leads to concrete,
new discoveries.

 Case Law 2: K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1962 SC 1788)

 Justification: The Court ruled that only the portion of a confession leading to the
discovery of material facts is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
In this case, although the machete and car were allegedly discovered based on Alan’s
confession, these items were circumstantial and do not conclusively establish the
involvement of the other accused.

 Case Law 3: Navjot Sandhu v. State (Parliament Attack Case) (2005) 11 SCC 600

 Justification: This case clarified that confessions made to police officers are not
admissible unless independently corroborated by other material evidence. The police
confession of Alan alone, without corroboration, cannot form the sole basis of the
prosecution’s case against him or the other accused.
Conclusion: Alan's confession to the IO is inadmissible in court, and no direct evidence connects him
or the other accused to the crime, weakening the case against them.

4. Lack of Direct Evidence Against Aravind and Alan:

 Argument: The charges against Aravind and Alan are based on circumstantial
evidence, and there is no direct evidence linking them to the crime. The witnesses
who allegedly saw Ravi with the accused are unreliable and have not been examined.
 Relevant Provisions:
o Section 227, CrPC: The accused may be discharged if, upon consideration of the
record, the judge feels there is no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.

 Supporting Case Law:

o Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622): The Court
ruled that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence must be
complete, and all facts must point unerringly to the guilt of the accused. In this case,
the chain of circumstantial evidence is incomplete.

 Case Law 1: Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of MP (AIR 1952 SC 343)

 Justification: The Supreme Court laid down the principle that circumstantial
evidence must form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused without any
other reasonable hypothesis. In this case, the prosecution’s evidence is purely
circumstantial, and the chain of events is incomplete, particularly in the absence of
direct evidence.

 Case Law 2: Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116

 Justification: In this landmark case on circumstantial evidence, the Court held that
the prosecution must prove beyond doubt that the chain of circumstances is complete.
In the present case, there are gaps in the circumstantial evidence, and the prosecution
has not presented a watertight case against the accused.

 Case Law 3: Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 808

 Justification: The Supreme Court stressed that in cases of circumstantial evidence,

the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. The lack of direct evidence in this
case raises significant doubts about the guilt of Aravind and Alan.

 Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence to proceed against Aravind and Alan, and
the charges should be quashed.
5. Jurisdiction of High Court to Quash Charges:

 Argument: The High Court has the power to quash proceedings if it is evident that no
prima facie case exists against the accused, or if the trial would be an abuse of the
process of law.
 Relevant Provisions:
o Section 482, CrPC: The High Court has inherent powers to quash criminal
proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of court.

 Supporting Case Law:

o State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cri) 426): The Supreme Court laid down
guidelines for quashing proceedings, stating that the High Court can quash an FIR if
the allegations do not constitute a cognizable offense.

 Case Law 1: State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335)

 Justification: This case laid down several conditions under which the High Court can
quash an FIR, including situations where the allegations do not make out a cognizable
offense or where no prima facie case is made out against the accused. In the present
case, the lack of direct evidence and procedural irregularities fit within the scope of
the Bhajan Lal principles.

 Case Law 2: Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque (2005) 1
SCC 122

 Justification: The Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings should be quashed
when they are manifestly attended with malafides or where the proceedings are an
abuse of the legal process. In this case, the prosecution appears to be acting on weak
evidence, and the proceedings are therefore liable to be quashed.

 Case Law 3: Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749

 Justification: The Court reiterated that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a

serious matter, and the High Court can intervene under Section 482 CrPC to prevent
abuse of process. Given the weak and circumstantial nature of the evidence against
the accused, quashing the charges would prevent unnecessary prosecution.

 Conclusion: The charges against Aravind, Alan, Alex, and Sreeni should be quashed,
as the evidence is insufficient to establish a prima facie case.
Quashing of Charges and Allowing for Further Investigation

 Argument: Since the addition of Alex and Sreeni was done prematurely, and the
investigation into alternative suspects (like Ravi’s cousin) was not conducted, the court
should quash the charges against Alex and Sreeni and order a fresh investigation to avoid
prejudice and ensure a fair trial.

Case Law 1: S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar (2002) 1 SCC 241

 Justification: The Supreme Court stated that where no prima facie case is made out against
the accused, the proceedings must be quashed to prevent misuse of judicial process. In this
case, without sufficient evidence and improper procedure under Section 200 CrPC, the
charges against Alex and Sreeni are premature and must be quashed.

Case Law 2: R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (1960) 3 SCR 388

 Justification: The Court held that charges should be quashed if the allegations made do not
constitute any offense, or if there is no legal evidence to support the allegations. Since Alex
and Sreeni were added without proper examination and in the absence of solid evidence,
the charges should be quashed.

Case Law 3: Michael Machado v. CBI (2000) 3 SCC 262

 Justification: The Supreme Court emphasized that charges must be based on strong material
evidence. In this case, there is insufficient evidence against Alex and Sreeni, and adding them
as accused was done hastily. Quashing the charges would protect their right to a fair trial
and allow the police to conduct a more thorough investigation.
5. Alternative Suspects (Section 156(3) CrPC)

A. Lack of Investigation Into Alternative Suspects

 Argument: The motive for Ravi’s murder, as suggested in the chargesheet, revolves around
the chit fund scam, where Aravind and others lost money. However, the key figure in this
scam is Ravi's cousin, who absconded with the money. The police failed to properly
investigate Ravi’s cousin or other potential suspects, even though the cousin had a more
direct motive for eliminating Ravi to cover his tracks. This failure violates the duty to conduct
a full and impartial investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC.

Case Law 1: Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP (2008) 2 SCC 409

 Justification: The Supreme Court emphasized the role of magistrates in ensuring a

comprehensive investigation by the police. Under Section 156(3) CrPC, a magistrate can
direct the police to investigate further if it is felt that the investigation is incomplete or has
not explored all possible suspects. In this case, the failure to investigate Ravi’s cousin and
other possible suspects is a violation of the principles laid down in Sakiri Vasu.

Case Law 2: Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP (2014) 2 SCC 1

 Justification: This case reiterated the duty of the police to conduct a fair and thorough
investigation in every case. The police’s apparent failure to investigate all possible suspects,
including Ravi’s cousin, reflects a one-sided approach, which could lead to a miscarriage of
justice. Under Section 156(3) CrPC, the magistrate could have ensured a more
comprehensive inquiry.

Case Law 3: Gopal Das Sindhi v. State of Assam (AIR 1961 SC 986)

 Justification: The Supreme Court highlighted that a magistrate must apply judicial mind
when directing an investigation under Section 156(3). In this case, since the police failed to
explore alternative suspects like Ravi's cousin, the magistrate should have directed a more
thorough investigation instead of relying solely on the existing chargesheet.
6. Violation of Fair Trial Rights (Section 200 CrPC)

A. Premature Addition of Alex and Sreeni Without Proper Investigation

 Argument: The premature addition of Alex and Sreeni as accused violates their right to a fair
trial as envisaged under Section 200 CrPC, which mandates that the magistrate must
examine the complainant and any witnesses before taking cognizance of an offense. In this
case, the magistrate did not properly examine witnesses before summoning Alex and Sreeni,
resulting in their wrongful addition as accused without sufficient evidence.

Case Law 1: Mohanlal v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 2015 SC 2092)

 Justification: The Supreme Court held that for a fair trial, it is essential that the magistrate
follows the procedure laid down under Section 200 CrPC before summoning accused
persons. In this case, the JMFC summoning Alex and Sreeni without proper examination of
witnesses violates the procedural safeguards required under Section 200 CrPC.

Case Law 2: Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92

 Justification: The Court clarified that adding an accused at any stage requires judicial
discretion and concrete evidence. Without a proper inquiry under Section 200, and without
examining the witnesses suggested by Karun, the court violated the rights of Alex and
Sreeni. Therefore, the charges against them should be quashed to allow for a proper
investigation.

Case Law 3: State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha (1980) 1 SCC 554

 Justification: The Supreme Court held that investigation should not be biased and should
include all aspects of the case. By not properly investigating Alex and Sreeni, and by adding
them as accused without sufficient inquiry, the police and magistrate violated the principles
of natural justice and fair trial.