This is the counsel appearing on behalf of RESPONDENT in the case

concering CHANCHAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RANJI WRIT PETITION

FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION Clubbed WITH
FREEDOM OF RELIGION Vs. STATE OF RANJI
Clubbed WITH APPEAL FILED UNDER ARTICLE 132 i.e RANJI
ENTERTAINMENT ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF RANJI

If it may please the bench the counsel may quickly address the
facts of the case.

Subsequently three issues arose in the present case :

1. WHETHER THE MULTIPLE FIRS FILED AGAINST CHANCHAL SHARMA

IN DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS SHOULD BE CLUBBED AT ONE
JURISDICTION OF HER CHOICE OR NOT?
2. WHETHER SECTION 295A OF AKHAND BHARAT PENAL CODE IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID OR NOT? IF YES, WHETHER THE
ENHANCEMENT OF THE PUNISHMENT UNDER SECTION 295A BY THE
STATE OF RANJI IS REASONABLE OR NOT?
3. WHETHER THE BAN IMPOSED BY STATE OF RANJI ON
ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY VIDE NOTIFICATION NO. 42/2023 IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID OR NOT?

May the counsel argue for the first issue………………

Addressing the first issue of the case that is THE MULTIPLE FIRS FILED
AGAINST CHANCHAL SHARMA IN DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS SHOULD
NOT BE CLUBBED AT ONE JURISDICTION OF HER CHOICE
the multiple FIRs filed against Chanchal Sharma in different
jurisdictions should not be clubbed at one jurisdiction of her choice
as firstly, the petition is non-maintainable on the ground of existing
alternative remedies. Secondly, The petitioner has no right to decide
upon the course of the investigation. Thirdly, Law enforcement
agencies are duty-bound and it is well within their power to
investigate the matter in their separate jurisdictions.
THE FIRST CONTENTION OF COUNSEL APEEARING IS THE PETITION IS
NON-MAINTAINABLE ON THE GROUND OF EXISTING ALTERNATIVE
REMEDIES.
the constitutional provisions and provisions on criminal law go hand
in hand as the former protects the liberty of the individual and the
latter sanctions the liability of the individual for violation of the
liberty of the society however in the present petition the petitioner
has been charged with Section 295A of the Akhand Bharat Penal
Code hence the checks and procedures to protect the liberty of the
individual shall be governed by the Akhand Bharat Code of Criminal
procedure. The primacy in the present petition shall be accorded to
the Crpc however it is well within the power of hon’ble Apex court to
exercise its writ jurisdiction through Article 32 only when there does
not lie any alternative remedy through which the liberty of the
petitioner can be protected.

That, in the present circumstances the petitioner always had the

alternative remedy under sec 482 of CrPc to approach the Hon’ble
High Court of Akhand Bharat further, if it appears to the Hon’ble
court that the circumstances are grave enough to exercise its power
within the constitutional provisions in that scenario also the
petitioner always had the remedy to approach the Hon’ble High
Court under Article 226 of the constitution of Akhand Bharat. In a
matter having the same facts wherein a petition under Article 32 was
filed for clubbing of several F.I.R the Hon’ble Apex Court held in N.V.
Sharma vs Union of India1 that
“As far as the primary prayer of the petitioner is concerned, we
reiterate our earlier view that she has got an equally effective
alternative remedy under the law. The petitioner shall, thus, be at
liberty to pursue such prayers by approaching the High Court of Delhi
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of
CrPC,as the case may be, in respect of the FIRs/complaints which
have already been registered or which may be registered in the
future. We say so also for the reason that a part of the cause of
action has arisen in favour of the petitioner within the territorial
jurisdiction of High Court of Delhi.”
It has been the settled principle of law that the Hon’ble Apex Court
should not entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
until the alternative remedy has been exhausted. In the matters
concerning clubbing of several FIR from different jurisdictions into
one the same cardinal principle has been adopted as in the landmark
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court taken from Arnab Ranjan
Goswami v. Union of India3 , it has been held that:
“it is an admitted position that the petitioner did not pursue
available remedies in the law, but sought instead to invoke the
jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner must be relegated to the
pursuit of the remedies available under the CrPC, which we hereby
do. The petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy available before
the High Court. We should not be construed as holding that a petition
under Article 32 is not maintainable. But when the High Court has the
power under Section 482, there is no reason to by-pass the procedure
under the CrPC, we see no exceptional grounds or reasons to
entertain this petition under Article 32. In a situation like this, and for
the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court would not like to entertain
the petition under Article 32. Therefore, we are of the opinion that
the petitioner must be relegated to avail of the remedies which are
available under the CrPC before the competent court including the
High Court.”
SECONDLY, The petitioner has no right to decide upon the course of
the investigation
which includes the place of the jurisdiction of the investigation. In
the case beforehand the petitioner was charged with penal
provisions for deliberately violating the religious feelings of any class
and in furtherance to which the FIR was registered at different places
now the petitioner has no right to decide the place at which the
investigation will be carried out as the same will be considered as
obstructing the course of investigation further the petitioner has
nowhere shown that the investigation at other jurisdiction will
violate any provision of law and in the home state of the petitioner,
the authenticity of the investigation will always remain in question as
therein the party X is in the power.
The Hon’ble Apex Court In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of
Enforcement [P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement held
that
“there is a well-defined and demarcated function in the field of
investigation and its subsequent adjudication. It is not the function of
the court to monitor the investigation process so long as the
investigation does not violate any provision of law. It must be left to
the discretion of the investigating agency to decide the course of
investigation. If the court is to interfere in each and every stage of the
investigation and the interrogation of the accused, it would affect the
normal course of investigation. It must be left to the investigating
agency to proceed in its own manner in interrogation of the accused,
nature of questions put to him and the manner of interrogation of
the accused.”

It is submitted that consolidating of all the FIR would cause a huge

impact upon the course of the investigation as it will become difficult
for the witnesses to come from a different jurisdiction to the home
state of the petitioner where party X is in the power. As in an
identical matter V.K. Sharma v. Union of India it has been held that
“It is not possible for us to order that all his cases pending in different
States should be consolidated into one and brought before one court.
That would impose unwarranted and unnecessary hardships on the
witnesses and investigating agency spread over those different
States.” Further, the court of law should avoid deciding the course of
an investigation when the investigation is at a nascent stage as that
will affect the investigating agencies, the same principle has been
corroborated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Narender G.
Goel v. State of Maharashtra.

THIRDLY, Law enforcement agencies are duty-bound and it is well

within their power to investigate the matter in their separate
jurisdictions.

the investigating agencies were duty-bound to register F.I.R. at their

jurisdictions on the information of cognizable offense. As in the
matter of Rhea Chakraborty v. State of Bihar7 , the Apex court
opined that:
“Under the federal design envisaged by the Constitution, Police is a
State subject under Schedule VII List II of the Constitution. Therefore,
investigation of a crime should normally be undertaken by the State
concerned's police, where the case is registered. There can be
situations where a particular crime by virtue of its nature and
ramification, is legally capable of being investigated by police from
different States or even by other agencies. However, investigation of
a crime by multiple authorities transgressing into the others domain,
is avoidable.”
Further in the matter of Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P.8 , Rasiklal
Dalpatram Thakkar v. State of Gujarat9 , Satvinder Kaur v. State (NCT
of Delhi)10 it has been held that: “registration of FIR is mandatory
under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses the
commission of a cognizable offense and no preliminary inquiry is
permissible in such a situation.”
It is submitted that the damage to all the complainants cannot be
seen through a single frame as at different places the impact of the
alleged act of the petitioner would be different in nature further it is
well within the rights of the investigating agencies to carry out
investigation at their jurisdiction without any interference from any
other law enforcement agency, legislature or the court of law
therefore at this nascent stage the hon’ble court should not
entertain the request of the petitioner to consolidate the whole
process of investigation at the home place of the petitioner as it
would negatively affect the investigation and concerns of the
complainant at different jurisdictions. It is submitted that the
petitioner has neither availed the criminal remedy nor the
alternative remedy before approaching the Hon’ble Apex Court
therefore the Hon’ble Court may outrightly reject the petition for by-
passing the provisions of the law. Further, it is well within the power
of the investigating agencies of different jurisdictions to investigate
the matter accordingly and the motive of the petitioner to fix the
course of investigation based on her whim and discretion shall not be
entertained as it would affect the investigation negatively and will
hinder the justice thereby generating the feeling of mistrust towards
the investigating agencies.