{"id":119691,"date":"2008-03-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-mathew-vs-mathaichan-mathew-on-13-march-2008"},"modified":"2016-11-28T03:09:01","modified_gmt":"2016-11-27T21:39:01","slug":"shaji-mathew-vs-mathaichan-mathew-on-13-march-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-mathew-vs-mathaichan-mathew-on-13-march-2008","title":{"rendered":"Shaji Mathew vs Mathaichan Mathew on 13 March, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Shaji Mathew vs Mathaichan Mathew on 13 March, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWA No. 2690 of 2007()\n\n\n1. SHAJI MATHEW,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. TOMY MATHEW,\n3. BABU CHERIAN,\n4. SABU MATHEW,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. MATHAICHAN MATHEW, S\/O. MATHEW,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. ZAKARIA MATHEW,\n\n3. SECRETARY,\n\n4. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,\n\n5. N. RAMACHANDRAN,\n\n6. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SC FOR CBI\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN\n\n Dated :13\/03\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                    H.L.Dattu,C.J. & K.T.Sankaran,J.\n                     -------------------------------------\n                             W.A.No.2690 of 2007\n                        ----------------------------------------------\n\n                     Dated, this the 13th day of March, 2008\n\n                                      JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
H.L.Dattu,C.J.\n<\/p>\n
               Accused persons in Crime No.96 of 2003 pending on Kanjirappally<\/p>\n
Police Station have filed this Writ Appeal questioning the correctness or<\/p>\n
otherwise of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.24565<\/p>\n
of 2006 dated 6.12.2006 and the orders passed in R.P.No.903 of 2007 in W.P.<\/p>\n
(C).No.24565 of 2006 dated 23.10.2007.\n<\/p>\n
               2.    Mathaichan Mathew and another were the de facto<\/p>\n
complainants in Crime No.96\/2003 pending before the Kanjirappally Police<\/p>\n
Station. This Court in W.P.(C).No.31824 of 2004, by its order dated 17.6.2005,<\/p>\n
had ordered for constitution of special investigation team to inquire into the<\/p>\n
allegations made in Crime No.96\/2003 in respect of the offences under Sections<\/p>\n
419, 468, 471 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. The grievance of the petitioners in<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).No.24565 of 2006 was that the Special Investigating Team so<\/p>\n
constituted by this Court while disposing of W.P.(C).No.31824 of 2004 may not<\/p>\n
be in a position to conduct a successful investigation and, therefore, had<\/p>\n
requested the Court to handover the investigation to the Central Bureau of<\/p>\n
Investigation.\n<\/p>\n
               3. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the<\/p>\n
various factors pleaded in the writ petition and also taking into consideration that<\/p>\n
the investigation requires to be made not only in the country but also outside the<\/p>\n
country, has thought it fit to direct the Special Investigating Team to handover the<\/p>\n
investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation of the offences alleged in<\/p>\n
Crime No.96\/2003 pending before Kanjirappally Police Station. The reasoning of<\/p>\n
W.A.No.2690 of 2007                         – 2 –<\/span><\/p>\n
the learned Single Judge in this regard, is at Para 4 and 5, is as under:<\/p>\n
              “According to the petitioners, there was no breakthrough in<\/p>\n
       the investigation. While so, a petition allegedly written by the first<\/p>\n
       petitioner and attested by the Embassy of India at Riyad was sent<\/p>\n
       to the 2nd respondent\/Director General of Police informing that all<\/p>\n
       the allegations are withdrawn against the accused and the<\/p>\n
       Manager, Poovathilappu Branch of State Bank of Travancore and<\/p>\n
       the complaint was sought to be treated as compromised,<\/p>\n
       compounded and withdrawn. The power of attorney holder of the<\/p>\n
       first petitioner was also instructed to withdraw O.S. No.215\/2002<\/p>\n
       filed by the first petitioner. Copy of the above petition sent to the<\/p>\n
       Director general of Police is produced as Ext.P15.          The entire<\/p>\n
       documents are forged, the seal and signature of the Attachee,<\/p>\n
       Embassy of India, Riyad is also forged.         On coming to know<\/p>\n
       Ext.P15, the fist petitioner addressed the Embassy of India for the<\/p>\n
       issuance of a cancellation letter, a copy of which is produced as<\/p>\n
       Ext.P15 dated 2-3-2006. The petitioner has also sent letter to the<\/p>\n
       second respondent\/Director General of Police, a copy of which is<\/p>\n
       produced as Ext.P17. Meanwhile the Bank Manager, State Bank of<\/p>\n
       Travancore, Poovathilappu Branch has sent a letter to the first<\/p>\n
       petitioner thanking him for withdrawing the proceedings, a copy of<\/p>\n
       which is produced as Ext.P18. It is in the circumstances and in<\/p>\n
       view of the forging of the seal and signature of the Attachee,<\/p>\n
       Embassy of India, Riyad that the investigation is sought to be<\/p>\n
       entrusted with the Central Bureau of Investigation.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              5. The C.D. was produced as directed by this Court. The<\/p>\n
       Director General of Police and the standing counsel for the C.B.I.<\/p>\n
       were heard. Both the Director General of Police and the standing<\/p>\n
       counsel for the C.B.I. have not opposed the petition.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              In the circumstances and on considering the case diary and<\/p>\n
       in view of the fact that investigation will have to be conducted<\/p>\n
       outside India as well, I find that it would be appropriate to entrust<\/p>\n
       the matter with an agency which is having the necessary<\/p>\n
W.A.No.2690 of 2007                         – 3 –<\/span><\/p>\n
        infrastructure and facilities to conduct such an investigation.<\/p>\n
        Hence, it is directed that the present investigating team would<\/p>\n
        handover the entire case records with all materials collected so far<\/p>\n
        to the C.B.I., who shall take necessary steps to conduct further<\/p>\n
        investigation.   Records shall be transmitted as expeditiously as<\/p>\n
        possible. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                4. After disposal of the writ petition, the appellants before us and<\/p>\n
who are accused in Crime No.96\/2003, had filed Review Petition No.903 of 2007<\/p>\n
inter alia requesting the Court to review the order passed in W.P.(C).No.24565<\/p>\n
of 2006 dated 6.12.2006. The learned Single Judge has rejected the review<\/p>\n
petition, primarily on the ground that the Central Bureau of Investigation, to whom<\/p>\n
the investigation had been handed over, is about to file the final report. The Court<\/p>\n
also had reserved liberty to the review petitioners, if they so desire, to question<\/p>\n
the veracity of the investigation and the final report that may be filed by the<\/p>\n
Central Bureau of Investigation by resorting to the appropriate proceedings under<\/p>\n
the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
                5. Aggrieved by these two orders, the appellants have presented<\/p>\n
this Writ Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                6.   While admitting this Writ Appeal, we had not granted any<\/p>\n
interim order to the appellants. It is, therefore, the Central Bureau of<\/p>\n
Investigation, after conducting the investigation as directed by this Court while<\/p>\n
disposing of W.P.(C).No.24565 of 2006, has already filed its final report before<\/p>\n
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam on 31.1.2008.<\/p>\n
                7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, firstly, would<\/p>\n
contend that in a lis between the two private parties the learned Single Judge<\/p>\n
ought not to have directed the investigation on a complaint filed by one of the<\/p>\n
W.A.No.2690 of 2007                         – 4 –<\/span><\/p>\n
parties to be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation in exercise of his<\/p>\n
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Secondly, it is contended that the<\/p>\n
petitioners in the writ petition by misrepresentation and by misleading the Court,<\/p>\n
have obtained the impugned order and, therefore, the Writ Appeal requires to be<\/p>\n
allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge requires to<\/p>\n
be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
                8.     Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
appellants, we are not impressed by the submissions made by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel.\n<\/p>\n
                9. Admittedly a crime is registered by the police authorities on a<\/p>\n
complaint filed by a citizen of the State. Since the investigation had not been<\/p>\n
conducted properly by the police authorities, the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C).<\/p>\n
No.24565 of 2006 had approached this Court in W.P.(C).No.31824 of 2004 inter<\/p>\n
alia requesting this Court to entrust the investigation to a special investigation<\/p>\n
team. This Court by its order dated 17.6.2005 had ordered to investigate the<\/p>\n
offences alleged in Crime No.96\/2003 by a Special Investigation Team.<\/p>\n
                10. The writ petitioners-de facto complainants were not satisfied<\/p>\n
with the progress made by the Special Investigation Team in the investigation of<\/p>\n
the offences alleged in Crime No.96\/2003. Therefore, they had made a request<\/p>\n
to the Court to direct the Special Investigation Team to handover the further<\/p>\n
investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation.<\/p>\n
                11. The Court, after considering the seriousness of the allegations<\/p>\n
made in the complaint (Crime No.96\/2003), has thought it fit to entrust the matter<\/p>\n
for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. This is done by this Court<\/p>\n
in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Time and again the<\/p>\n
W.A.No.2690 of 2007                         – 5 –<\/span><\/p>\n
Courts have observed that the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the<\/p>\n
Constitution is wide enough even to entertain a request made by a private citizen<\/p>\n
to order a C.B.I. investigation. Therefore, we cannot find fault with the orders<\/p>\n
passed by the learned Single Judge, who had directed the Special Investigation<\/p>\n
Team to handover the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation taking<\/p>\n
into consideration the seriousness of the offences alleged in Crime No.96\/2003.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the first contention canvassed by the learned counsel has no merit<\/p>\n
whatsoever.\n<\/p>\n
               12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit<\/p>\n
that by misrepresentation and by misleading the Court, the writ petitioners have<\/p>\n
obtained appropriate orders.\n<\/p>\n
               13. After the disposal of the writ petition, the appellants have filed<\/p>\n
a review petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge has taken notice of<\/p>\n
all the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
appellants with regard to misrepresentation and misleading of the Court said to<\/p>\n
have been made by the writ petitioners while obtaining the order passed in the<\/p>\n
writ petition. After rejecting all those contentions, the learned Single Judge has<\/p>\n
come to the conclusion that if for any reason the appellants are aggrieved by the<\/p>\n
report of the Central Bureau of Investigation, they may question the same before<\/p>\n
an appropriate forum as provided under the provisions of the Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
               14. During the pendency of this appeal, the Central Bureau of<\/p>\n
Investigation has submitted its final report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on<\/p>\n
31.1.2008. In our opinion, if for any reason the appellants are aggrieved by the<\/p>\n
said report, they are at liberty to question the same before the appropriate forum<\/p>\n
W.A.No.2690 of 2007                       – 6 –<\/span><\/p>\n
in appropriate proceedings. Since the orders passed by the learned Single Judge<\/p>\n
has been implemented, at this stage it may not be proper for this Court to annul<\/p>\n
the said order.\n<\/p>\n
               15. In view of the above discussion, we reject the Writ Appeal.<\/p>\n
However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we<\/p>\n
refrain from ordering payment of costs.\n<\/p>\n
               16. In view of the orders passed in the Writ Appeal, the reliefs<\/p>\n
sought in I.A.Nos.90 of 2008 and 280 of 2008 need not be considered by this<\/p>\n
Court. Accordingly, the said applications are closed.<\/p>\n
               Ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                              H.L.Dattu
\n                                                            Chief Justice<\/p>\n
                                                            K.T.Sankaran
\n                                                                Judge
\nvku\/DK<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Shaji Mathew vs Mathaichan Mathew on 13 March, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WA No. 2690 of 2007() 1. SHAJI MATHEW, … Petitioner 2. TOMY MATHEW, 3. BABU CHERIAN, 4. SABU MATHEW, Vs 1. MATHAICHAN MATHEW, S\/O. MATHEW, … Respondent 2. ZAKARIA MATHEW, 3. SECRETARY, 4. DIRECTOR GENERAL […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-119691","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShaji Mathew vs Mathaichan Mathew on 13 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-mathew-vs-mathaichan-mathew-on-13-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shaji Mathew vs Mathaichan Mathew on 13 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-mathew-vs-mathaichan-mathew-on-13-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-27T21:39:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaji-mathew-vs-mathaichan-mathew-on-13-march-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaji-mathew-vs-mathaichan-mathew-on-13-march-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shaji Mathew vs Mathaichan Mathew on 13 March, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-27T21:39:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaji-mathew-vs-mathaichan-mathew-on-13-march-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1603,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaji-mathew-vs-mathaichan-mathew-on-13-march-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaji-mathew-vs-mathaichan-mathew-on-13-march-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaji-mathew-vs-mathaichan-mathew-on-13-march-2008\",\"name\":\"Shaji Mathew vs Mathaichan Mathew on 13 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-27T21:39:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaji-mathew-vs-mathaichan-mathew-on-13-march-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaji-mathew-vs-mathaichan-mathew-on-13-march-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaji-mathew-vs-mathaichan-mathew-on-13-march-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shaji Mathew vs Mathaichan Mathew on 13 March, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shaji Mathew vs Mathaichan Mathew on 13 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-mathew-vs-mathaichan-mathew-on-13-march-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shaji Mathew vs Mathaichan Mathew on 13 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-mathew-vs-mathaichan-mathew-on-13-march-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-27T21:39:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-mathew-vs-mathaichan-mathew-on-13-march-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-mathew-vs-mathaichan-mathew-on-13-march-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shaji Mathew vs Mathaichan Mathew on 13 March, 2008","datePublished":"2008-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-27T21:39:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-mathew-vs-mathaichan-mathew-on-13-march-2008"},"wordCount":1603,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-mathew-vs-mathaichan-mathew-on-13-march-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-mathew-vs-mathaichan-mathew-on-13-march-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-mathew-vs-mathaichan-mathew-on-13-march-2008","name":"Shaji Mathew vs Mathaichan Mathew on 13 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-27T21:39:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-mathew-vs-mathaichan-mathew-on-13-march-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-mathew-vs-mathaichan-mathew-on-13-march-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-mathew-vs-mathaichan-mathew-on-13-march-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shaji Mathew vs Mathaichan Mathew on 13 March, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119691","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=119691"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119691\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119691"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119691"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119691"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}