{"id":139518,"date":"2004-12-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-12-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijai-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-december-2004-2"},"modified":"2015-08-22T10:34:24","modified_gmt":"2015-08-22T05:04:24","slug":"vijai-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-december-2004-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijai-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-december-2004-2","title":{"rendered":"Vijai vs State Represented By on 9 December, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Vijai vs State Represented By on 9 December, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 09\/12\/2004 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Honourable  Mr.Justice V.KANAGARAJ    \n\nCrl.OP.No.33990 of 2004 \nand \nCRL.M.P.NO.10680 OF 2004    \n\nVijai                                                                         ...Petitioner\n\n-vs-\n\n1.State  represented by\n   Inspector of Police,\n   District Crime branch,\n   Vellore.\n\n2. C.Padmavathi, \n    W\/o Ekambaram,  \n    No.4\/7, Taluk Office Road,\n   Saidapet, Chennai-15.                                        ...Respondents\n\nImpeading the 2nd respondent as per the order\nof this Court dt.18.11.2004 in Crl.M.P.no.10852\nof 2004 by VKJ.\n\n        Petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C.  for the relief as  stated\ntherein.\n\n!For Petitioner :  Mr.K.Srinivasan\n\n^For Respondent No.1:  Mr.  A.N.Thambidurai \n                Government Advocate (Crl.Side)\n\nFor Respondent No.:  Mr.Venkatesh  \n\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p>                The  petitioner  has  filed  the  Criminal  original  petition<br \/>\npraying to call for the records relating to the investigation in Crime No.9 of<br \/>\n2 004 on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime  Branch,  Vellore<br \/>\nand quash the FIR as against the petitioner herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.The  case  of  the  petitioner  is  that  the  father of the<br \/>\npetitioner is the Managing Life Trustee of &#8216;Jai Bharat Charitable Trust&#8221;; that<br \/>\nthe  trust  is  running  educational  Institutions   including   Priyadarshini<br \/>\nEngineering  College  at  Chettiappanur  Village,  Vaniyampadi; that the trust<br \/>\nconsists of the Managing Trustee and 13 other life trustees; that due  to  the<br \/>\ndifference of opinion among the trustees, dispute arose between them following<br \/>\nwhich  Thiru  K.T.Anbazhagan,  Life  Trustee  joining  with  seven  other life<br \/>\ntrustees have filed C.S.No.294 of 2003 before this  Court  seeking  change  of<br \/>\nadministration  of  the  trust  from  the  hands of A1; that pending suit, the<br \/>\ntrustees have  sought  for  production  of  accounts  and  appointment  of  an<br \/>\nAdministrator to run the college; that A1, the father of the petitioner herein<br \/>\nhad consented for the appointment of an Administrator and this Court appointed<br \/>\nMr.Justice V.    Rengaswamy, a retired Judge as Administrator pending disposal<br \/>\nof the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.   It  is  the  further  case   of   the   petitioner   that<br \/>\nK.T.Anbazhagan  along with seven other trustees preferred a false complaint to<br \/>\nthe Administrator alleging that the first accused is going on collecting a sum<br \/>\nof Rs.3500\/- from each student towards  the  Development  fees  and  the  said<br \/>\namount was not brought on record;that the Accountant denied that every payment<br \/>\nis  made  only through bank and therefore the Administrator concluded that the<br \/>\nallegation is not supported by any material; that the said K.T.Anbazhagan once<br \/>\nagain preferred a complaint addressed  to  the  Deputy  Inspector  General  of<br \/>\nPolice,  Vellore  levelling  similar  allegations;  that the respondent police<br \/>\nregistered a case in Crime No.9 of 2004 for the offences  under  Sections  403<br \/>\nand  406 IPC against 4 persons ;that the sum and substance of the complaint is<br \/>\n(1) that without authorisation of the Board, a sum of  Rs.25  lakhs  has  been<br \/>\ncollected towards development charges and the same has been misappropriated by<br \/>\nthe  Managing  Trustee(A1)  ;(2)  that the second allegations is that a sum of<br \/>\nRs.15 lakhs was collected as fine towards  late  attendance  by  the  students<br \/>\nwhich is also without the authorisation of the Board and the said sum has also<br \/>\nbeen  misappropriated by the managing Trustee (3) that the third allegation is<br \/>\nthat the Internet and browsing equipments and computers are missing  from  the<br \/>\ncollege  and  it  is  alleged  that  the  petitioner(A2) who is the son of the<br \/>\nManaging Trustee(A1) is in possession of all those equipments.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.Heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner,  learned<br \/>\nGovernment  Advocate (Crl.Side) as well as learned counsel for the intervenor,<br \/>\nthe second respondent herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner would<br \/>\nsubmit that by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the  ingredients<br \/>\nof  the  offence  of  criminal  breach  of trust has been made out against the<br \/>\npetitioner.  Once the ingredients of the offence under Section 405 IPC is  not<br \/>\nmade out,  then  automatically  403 IPC and 406 are not attracted.  It is also<br \/>\nfurther submitted that an offence under Section 403 IPC is non-cognizable  and<br \/>\nbailable offence  .    The police officer has got a right to act in accordance<br \/>\nwith law as per Section 154 Cr.P.C.    only  if  he  received  information  in<br \/>\ncognizable cases.    In  case,  the  police  officer receives information with<br \/>\nregard to non-cognizable cases, then as per Section 155  Cr.P.C.,  he  has  to<br \/>\nnecessarily refer  the  informant to the Magistrate.  Sub-Section 2 of Section<br \/>\n155 Cr.P.C.    specifically  says  &#8220;No  police  officer  shall  investigate  a<br \/>\nnoncognizable  case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such<br \/>\ncases or commit the case for trial&#8221;.  Therefore, even assuming that an offence<br \/>\nunder Section 403 IPC is made  out  against  the  petitioner,  the  bar  under<br \/>\nSub-clause 2  of  Section 155 Cr.P.C.  will apply and the police have no power<br \/>\nto investigate as against the petitioner herein.  It is further submitted that<br \/>\nSub-Clause 4 of section 155  of  Cr.P.C.    will  not  apply  as  far  as  the<br \/>\npetitioner  is  concerned since no cognizable offence is made out against him.<br \/>\nTherefore the inclusion of the petitioner along with others in Crime  No.9  of<br \/>\n2004 is illegal and without any jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.Learned  Government  Advocate  on  the Criminal Side filed a<br \/>\ncounter affidavit  and  would  submit  that  because  of  the  fact  that  the<br \/>\nAdministrator  was  pleased  to  forward the complaints to the respondent only<br \/>\nafter verification of the facts and circumstances.      The  petitioner  being<br \/>\nthe  son  of  the  first  accused, has actively involved in the affairs of the<br \/>\ntrust and now the petitioner cannot claim that he is in no way connected  with<br \/>\nthe affairs of the trust.  It is also further submitted that the averment that<br \/>\nthe  offence  under  Section  403  is  not attracted against the petitioner in<br \/>\nunsustainable because the petitioner herein had throughout aided  and  abetted<br \/>\nthe other  accused  to  indulge  in  illegal  activities.   It is also further<br \/>\nsubmitted that even admitting for the sake of argument that Section 406 IPC is<br \/>\nnot attracted, the case is only under investigation and during the  course  of<br \/>\ninvestigation,  if  further evidence come to light, the section can be altered<br \/>\naccordingly either before the filing of the charge sheet or  at  the  time  of<br \/>\nfiling charge  sheet.    Learned  Government  Advocate(Crl.Side) would further<br \/>\nsubmit that if the above petition is allowed, the  petitioner  would  go  scot<br \/>\nfree  inspite  of  committing  the  offences and the respondent is not able to<br \/>\nverify the records because of the fact that the petitioner  along  with  other<br \/>\naccused  is  absconding  and  attempting  to destroy the available records and<br \/>\nfurther involving themselves in intimidating the staff members and  HOD&#8217;s  not<br \/>\nto give  any  statement implicating them.  Hence, he would pray to dismiss the<br \/>\nabove Criminal Original Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  intervenor\/  the<br \/>\nsecond  respondent herein would submit that due to difference of opinion among<br \/>\nthe trustees, K.T.Anbazhagan along with seven others have filed  the  suit  in<br \/>\nC.S.No.294  of  2003  before  this Court; that pending suit, the trustees have<br \/>\nsought for production of accounts and appointment of an Administrator  to  run<br \/>\nthe college; that Justice Mr.V.Rengaswamy has been appointed as Administrator;<br \/>\nin  spite  of appointment of Administrator, the Managing Trustee has collected<br \/>\nseveral lakhs  and  the  same  has  been  misappropriated  by   them.      The<br \/>\nAdministrator has  filed a contempt petition and the same is pending.  Inspite<br \/>\nof pendency of the contempt petition, the Internet and browsing equipments and<br \/>\ncomputers are missing from the college and it is alleged that  the  petitioner<br \/>\nwho  is  the  son  of  the  Managing  trustee  is  in  possession of all those<br \/>\nequipments.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.Inspite of all the above arguments advanced both on the part<br \/>\nof the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State and on the part of the<br \/>\nIntervenor,  the  second  respondent  herein  it  could  be  seen   that   the<br \/>\ninvestigation  in the registered case is not yet over and during the course of<br \/>\ninvestigation as per the Judgments of the Hon&#8217;ble Apex  Court  including  very<br \/>\nrecent  judgments, the field is entirely occupied by the investigating officer<br \/>\nand  the  Courts  are  not  supposed  to  cause  interference  into  such   an<br \/>\ninvestigation being undertaken by the prosecuting authority in exercise of the<br \/>\npowers  conferred on them by the Court and therefore it is undesirable for the<br \/>\nCourts to cause interference and on this legal dictum this Court does not  see<br \/>\nany  cause  to make interference in compliance of the requirements made on the<br \/>\npart of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner has  to  necessarily  wait<br \/>\nfor the investigation to come to a close, since even the investigating officer<br \/>\nwho  has  to  go  into  all  the  aspects  of  the  position  of the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances and in consideration of the aspects which are brought  forth  in<br \/>\nthe  above application it has to arrive at its own conclusion in conceding the<br \/>\nrequest of the petitioner  which  cannot  be  ruled  out  at  this  stage  and<br \/>\ntherefore  it  is  only  proper  on  the  part  of this Court not to cause its<br \/>\ninterference thus  causing  any  disturbance  to  the  investigation  that  is<br \/>\nundertaken by the first respondent\/ appellant and hence the following order:\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.In result,<\/p>\n<p>                (i)  for the reasons assigned above, this Court is of the view<br \/>\nthat it is unnecessary to cause its interference as it is prayed for  and  the<br \/>\nonly  course  that  is  open  for  this Court is to dismiss the above criminal<br \/>\nOriginal Petition and the same is ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>                (ii)Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.10680 of 2004 is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet :  Yes<\/p>\n<p>VJY <\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  Inspector of Police,<br \/>\nDistrict Crime branch,<br \/>\nVellore.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\nMadras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Vijai vs State Represented By on 9 December, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 09\/12\/2004 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice V.KANAGARAJ Crl.OP.No.33990 of 2004 and CRL.M.P.NO.10680 OF 2004 Vijai &#8230;Petitioner -vs- 1.State represented by Inspector of Police, District Crime branch, Vellore. 2. C.Padmavathi, W\/o Ekambaram, No.4\/7, Taluk Office Road, [&hellip;]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-139518","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Vijai vs State Represented By on 9 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/vijai-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-december-2004-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vijai vs State Represented By on 9 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijai-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-december-2004-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-22T05:04:24+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\/vijai-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-december-2004-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijai-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-december-2004-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vijai vs State Represented By on 9 December, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-22T05:04:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijai-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-december-2004-2\"},\"wordCount\":1470,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijai-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-december-2004-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijai-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-december-2004-2\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijai-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-december-2004-2\",\"name\":\"Vijai vs State Represented By on 9 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-22T05:04:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijai-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-december-2004-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijai-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-december-2004-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijai-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-december-2004-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vijai vs State Represented By on 9 December, 2004\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Vijai vs State Represented By on 9 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/vijai-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-december-2004-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vijai vs State Represented By on 9 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijai-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-december-2004-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-22T05:04:24+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\/vijai-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-december-2004-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijai-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-december-2004-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vijai vs State Represented By on 9 December, 2004","datePublished":"2004-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-22T05:04:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijai-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-december-2004-2"},"wordCount":1470,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijai-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-december-2004-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijai-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-december-2004-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijai-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-december-2004-2","name":"Vijai vs State Represented By on 9 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-22T05:04:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijai-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-december-2004-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijai-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-december-2004-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijai-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-december-2004-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vijai vs State Represented By on 9 December, 2004"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/139518","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=139518"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139518\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=139518"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=139518"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=139518"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}