Writ Petition Dowry Death

SUBJЕCT:
Pleading, Drafting and Conveyancing
TOPIC:
Writ Petition under Art.32
A PROJECT REPORT
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirement of the award of the degree
of
BBA LLB (Hons.)
by
VIJIT SAXENA
Reg. no. – 201305037
Department of Law
MANIPAL UNIVERSITY JAIPUR,
JAIPUR- 303007,
RAJASTHAN, INDIA
DEPARTMENT of LAW
MANIPAL UNIVERSITY JAIPUR,
JAIPUR – 303 007 (RAJASTHAN),
INDIA
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the project titled Writ Petition

under Art.32 is a record of the Bona fide work done by
SUYASH AGRAWAL (201305037) submitted in
partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award
of the B B A . L L B ( H o n s . ) in School of Law
of Manipal University Jaipur, during the academic
year 2022-23.
Mr. Kartik Chamadia

Project Guide,
Dept of law
Manipal
University
Jaipur
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 211 OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF
1. Kajal Mukesh Singh Age 23

years, Indian Inhabitant
permanently R/at 629, Ashok Nagar,
Kalyanpur, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar
Pradesh - 208 107
2. Sneha Anil Singh

Age 20 years, Indian Inhabitant
permanently R/at Flat No. 3, Plot
No.75, Sector 5, Koperkhairane, Navi
Mumbai, Thane - 400 709
3. Bhumi Anil Singh

Age 22 years, Indian Inhabitant
permanently R/at Room No. 107
Squaters Colony, Gate No.7, Malwani,
Kharodi, Malad West, Mumbai - 400
095
…………[Petitioner]
VERUS
1. The State of Maharashtra

(Through the Inspector-in-charge of Malad Police Station)
……….. [Respondent]
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR
ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF ………UNDER ARTICLE 32
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
To
Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship’s Companion Justices of
the Supreme Court of India. The Humble petition of the Petitioner above named.
MOST RESPECTFULLY STATES:
 That the complainant-Rupesh Ramchandra [Police Constable]

where he was informed by about the secrete information that a
person by name Mr. Nijamuddin Khan, a pimp, provides
women for prostitution at a guest house in Malad.
 That accordingly a trap was arranged, and the raiding team left
for the spot. A rickshaw came and stopped near the decoy driver
spoke to the decoy. The decoy had paid money to rickshaw driver
for prostitution. Thereafter, two victim girls came out of the
rickshaw. The decoy along with one victim girl left in the same
rickshaw.
 That officers of the team to keep a watch on the remaining two

victim girls; whereas he along with rest of the members of the
raiding team followed the rickshaw carrying the first victim and
the decoy.
 That after the rickshaw reached its destination, members of the

raiding team who were keeping vigil over the two victims,
arrested the rickshaw driver and the victims and took them in
their custody.
 That victim [A], [B] and [C] were presented before the
magistrate on 13.09.2019 and magistrate order to conduct
medical examination as well as asked for report from probation
officer before 07.10.2019 and direct those girls to NGO for the
time being.
 That on 19.10.2019 medical report came along with the fact

that the mother of the girls were involve too in the act as per
their “Bediya” community it was a custom The parents of the
victims were aware that the victims are engaged in prostitution,
meaning thereby, the parents themselves are allowing to indulge
in prostitution as a profession for their daughters' and, therefore,
the learned Magistrate observed that it would not be safe to
hand over the custody of the victims to their mothers.
 That after knowing the fact victims were not safe with their
parents as the parents have no objection for the victim girls to
live their life as prostitutes, the victims were directed to be
detained in the shelter home wherein the Counsellor would
counsel the victims to restrain from prostitution.
 Having taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances

and after going through Sections17(1), (2), (3), (4) and (6) of
the said Act, the victims (A), (B) and (C) were detained for a
period of one year from 19 October 2019.
 During the trail heard Mr. Saraogi, the learned Counsel for the
petitioners. He contends that both the Courts below have
ignored the ambit and scope of the said Act, more particularly
Section 17, which is not a penal provision, as the victims herein
are not accused nor being prosecuted under Sections 3 to 9 of
the said Act. He submits that both the Courts below have failed
to appreciate the factual matrix of the matter, which they took it
in a very casual, cavalier and mechanical manner while passing
the impugned orders.
 According to the learned Counsel, the victims are major enough

to take their own decision in respect of their lives. Counsel to
the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate under
Section 17(2) of the said Act, which according to him, is void
ab initio as well as bad in law as the mandate created by the
statute has not been followed by both the Courts below.
Sections 15 and 16 of the said Act are always subjected to the
provision of an inquiry under the provision of Section 17 of the
Act. He drew my attention to the fact that during the alleged
raid conducted by the Investigating Agency, no customer was
found with the victims- petitioners in order to involve the
petitioners into any immoral activities like prostitution as
defined in the said Act.
 Since the victims, according to the learned Counsel, are not

being prosecuted, there is no question of continuing their
detention in the custody of Navjeevan Mahila Vastigruha, ,
Mumbai or with any other institution. Even otherwise, the said
Act does not empower the Magistrate to hold the custody of the
victims beyond the period of 3 weeks without their being any
final order to that effect after following due process of law.
 The learned Counsel has, therefore, strenuously urged to quash

the impugned orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate,
54th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai and the Additional Sessions
Judge, Dindoshi.
QUESTION OF LAW:
This Writ Petition raised questions of law that is for public importance for
determination by this Hon’ble Court:
 Whether the detention of the victims under Section 17(2) of the Act
is valid and in compliance with the mandate created by the statute.
 Whether the victims, who are not being prosecuted under specific
sections of the Act, can be held in custody beyond the period of
three weeks without a final order and due process of law.
 Whether the impugned orders passed by the Metropolitan
Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge should be quashed
on the grounds that they ignored the ambit and scope of the Act,
specifically Section 17.
GROUNDS:
Violation of Section 17 of the Act: Arguing that the detention of the

victims under Section 17(2) is void ab initio and bad in law as the
mandate created by the statute has not been followed by the lower courts.
Misinterpretation of the Ambit and Scope of the Act: Alleging that both
the lower courts have ignored the ambit and scope of the Act, particularly
Section 17, which is not a penal provision, and that the victims are not
being accused or prosecuted under Sections 3 to 9 of the said Act.
Failure to Appreciate Factual Matrix: Contending that the lower courts

took a casual, cavalier, and mechanical approach in passing the impugned
orders, failing to appreciate the nuanced factual matrix of the case.
Assertion of Victims' Autonomy: Highlighting that the victims are major

enough to make their own decisions regarding their lives and that their
detention is not justified.
Exceeding Detention Period Without Final Order: Arguing that the Act
does not empower the Magistrate to hold the custody of the victims
beyond the period of three weeks without a final order, and the continued
detention is therefore illegal.
Quashing of Impugned Orders: Urging the court to quash the impugned

orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional Sessions
Judge.
AVERTMENT:
That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition in any
High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of
the present jurisdiction.
PRAYER:
1. Quashing of Detention Orders: Kindly quash the impugned orders dated [date]
passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 54th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai, and
the Additional Sessions Judge, Dindoshi, which have resulted in the detention
of the victims (A), (B), and (C) for a period of one year from 19 October 2019
under Sections 17(1), (2), (3), (4), and (6) of the [Act].
2. Declaration of Section 17(2) as Void and Bad in Law: Declare that the
detention order under Section 17(2) of the [Act] is void ab initio and bad in
law due to non-compliance with the mandate created by the statute.
3. Immediate Release of Victims: Direct the immediate release of the victims

(A), (B), and (C) from the custody of Navjeevan Mahila Vastigruha, Mumbai,
or any other institution, as they are not being prosecuted, and their detention is
beyond the period of three weeks without a final order. Any Other Relief
Deemed Fit by the Honorable Court: Grant any other relief deemed fit by this
Honorable Court in the interest of justice and equity.
FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL

AS INDUTY BOUND, EVERY PRAY.
BOMBAY
FILED BY:
Petitioner
Through Advocate

Writ Petition Dowry Death

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Writ Petition Dowry Death

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Writ Petition Dowry Death

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUBJЕCT:

Pleading, Drafting and Conveyancing

Writ Petition under Art.32

Reg. no. – 201305037

MANIPAL UNIVERSITY JAIPUR,

This is to certify that the project titled Writ Petition

Mr. Kartik Chamadia

1. Kajal Mukesh Singh Age 23

2. Sneha Anil Singh

3. Bhumi Anil Singh

1. The State of Maharashtra

MOST RESPECTFULLY STATES:

 That the complainant-Rupesh Ramchandra [Police Constable]

 That officers of the team to keep a watch on the remaining two

 That after the rickshaw reached its destination, members of the

 That on 19.10.2019 medical report came along with the fact

 Having taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances

 According to the learned Counsel, the victims are major enough

 Since the victims, according to the learned Counsel, are not

 The learned Counsel has, therefore, strenuously urged to quash

Violation of Section 17 of the Act: Arguing that the detention of the

Failure to Appreciate Factual Matrix: Contending that the lower courts

Assertion of Victims' Autonomy: Highlighting that the victims are major

Quashing of Impugned Orders: Urging the court to quash the impugned

3. Immediate Release of Victims: Direct the immediate release of the victims

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL

You might also like