{"id":141093,"date":"2006-02-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumari-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-21-february-2006-2"},"modified":"2018-04-04T08:18:52","modified_gmt":"2018-04-04T02:48:52","slug":"ramesh-kumari-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-21-february-2006-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumari-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-21-february-2006-2","title":{"rendered":"Ramesh Kumari vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) And Ors on 21 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ramesh Kumari vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) And Ors on 21 February, 2006<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Sema<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: H.K. Sema, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  1229 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nRamesh Kumari\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState (N.C.T. of Delhi) and Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/02\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nH.K. Sema &amp; Dr. AR. Lakshmanan\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>SEMA, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 24.1.2002 passed by the<br \/>\nDivision Bench of the Delhi High Court. The controversy in this appeal is<br \/>\nconfined to the non-registration of the case by the police pursuant to a<br \/>\ncomplaint dated 9.9.1997 and 13.9.1997 filed by the appellant. It is stated<br \/>\nthat the appellant was in possession of the land. The stay order was<br \/>\ngranted by the High Court protecting the possession of the appellant on<br \/>\n14.8.1997 and it was extended by another order dated 10.9.1997, in the<br \/>\npresence of the other side. However, the respondent Nos. 4 to 9 broke open<br \/>\nthe lock and removed various articles on 9.9.1997 and 10.9.1997. We make it<br \/>\nclear that we are not entering into the merits of the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>The grievance of the appellant is that an information of a cognizable<br \/>\noffence has been filed by the appellant before the Station House Officer<br \/>\n(SHO), Kapashera on 9.9.1997 and 13.9.1997. However, no case was registered<br \/>\nby the concerned SHO. Thereafter, the matter was brought to the notice of<br \/>\nthe Police Commissioner, without any result. This has led the appellant to<br \/>\napproach the High Court by filing Criminal Writ Petition No. 108 of 1998.<br \/>\nBy the impugned order the High Court was of the view that the appellant has<br \/>\nfiled a Contempt Petition CCP No. 307\/1997 and that is pending before the<br \/>\nHigh Court. The High Court found it difficult to direct to register a case<br \/>\non the basis of the information filed by the appellant. The High Court was<br \/>\nalso of the view that the appellant was alternative remedy available to<br \/>\nher, albeit, without indication what is the alternative remedy available to<br \/>\nthe appellant. The High Court ultimately also observed that should<br \/>\nrespondent Nos. 1 and 2 be seized of petitioner&#8217;s complaint or<br \/>\nrepresentation, they shall also examine and pass appropriate orders within<br \/>\nthree months.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, at the outset,<br \/>\ninvites our attention to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent and<br \/>\nsubmits that pursuant to the aforesaid observation of the High Court the<br \/>\ncomplaint\/representation has been subsequently examined by the respondent<br \/>\nand found to genuine case was established. We are not convinced by this<br \/>\nsubmission because the sole grievance of the appellant is that no case has<br \/>\nbeen registered in terms of the mandatory provisions of Section 154(1) of<br \/>\nthe Criminal Procedure Code. Genuineness or otherwise of the information<br \/>\ncan only be considered after registration of the case. Genuineness or<br \/>\ncredibility of the information is not a condition precedent for<br \/>\nregistration of a case. We are also clearly of the view that the High Court<br \/>\nerred in law in dismissing the petition solely on the ground that the<br \/>\ncontempt petition was pending and the appellant had an alternative remedy.<br \/>\nThe ground of alternative remedy nor pending of the contempt petition would<br \/>\nbe no substitute in law not to register a case when a citizen makes a<br \/>\ncomplaint of a cognizable offence against the Police Officer.\n<\/p>\n<p>That the Police Officer mandatorily registers a case on a complaint of a<br \/>\ncognizable offence by the citizen under Section 154 of the Code are no more<br \/>\nres integra. The point of law has been set at rest by this Court in the<br \/>\ncase of <a href=\"\/doc\/1033637\/\">State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors.,<\/a> [1992] Supp. 1<br \/>\nSCC 335. This Court after examining the whole gamut and intricacies of the<br \/>\nmandatory nature of Section 154 of the Code has arrived at the finding in<br \/>\nparas 31 and 32 of the judgment as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;31. At the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the<br \/>\ninformation disclosing a cognizable offence in compliance with the mandate<br \/>\nof Section 154(1) of the Code, the concerned police officer cannot embark<br \/>\nupon an enquiry as to whether the information, laid by the informant is<br \/>\nreliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the<br \/>\nground that the information is not reliable or credible. On the other hand,<br \/>\nthe officer in charge of a police station is statutorily obliged to<br \/>\nregister a case and then to proceed with the investigation if he has reason<br \/>\nto suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section<br \/>\n156 of the Code to investigate, subject to the proviso to Section 157. (As<br \/>\nwe have proposed to make a detailed discussion about the power of a police<br \/>\nofficer in the field of investigation of a cognizable offence within the<br \/>\nambit of Sections 156 and 157 of the Code in the ensuing part of this<br \/>\njudgment, we do not propose to deal with those sections in extenso in the<br \/>\npresent context). In case, an officer in charge of a police station refuses<br \/>\nto exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and to register a case on the<br \/>\ninformation of a cognizable offence reported and thereby violates the<br \/>\nstatutory duty cast upon him, the person aggrieved by such refusal can send<br \/>\nthe substance of the information in writing and by post to the<br \/>\nSuperintendent of Police concerned who is satisfied that the information<br \/>\nforwarded to him discloses a colonizable offence, should either investigate<br \/>\nthe case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police<br \/>\nofficer subordinate to him in the manner provided by sub-section (3) of<br \/>\nSection 154 of the Code.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;32. Be it noted that in Section 154(1) of the Code, the legislature in<br \/>\nits collective wisdom has carefully and cautiously used the expression<br \/>\n&#8220;information&#8221; without qualifying the same as in Section 41(1)(a) or (g)<br \/>\nof the Code wherein the expressions, &#8220;reasonable complaint&#8221; and<br \/>\n&#8220;credible information&#8221; are used. Evidently, the non-qualification of the<br \/>\nword &#8220;information&#8221; in Section 154(1) unlike in Section 41(1)(a) and (g)<br \/>\nof the Code may be for the reason that the police officer should not refuse<br \/>\nto record an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence<br \/>\nand to register a case thereon on the ground that he is not satisfied with<br \/>\nthe reasonableness or credibility of the information. In other words,<br \/>\n`reasonableness&#8217; or `credibility&#8217; of the said information is not a<br \/>\ncondition precedent for registration of a case. A comparison of the present<br \/>\nSection 154 with those of the earlier Codes will indicate that the<br \/>\nlegislature had purposely thought it fit to employ only the word<br \/>\n&#8220;information&#8221; without qualifying the said word. Section 139 of the Code<br \/>\nof Criminal Procedure of 1861 (Act 25 of 1861) passed by the Legislative<br \/>\nCouncil of India read that `every complaint or information&#8217; preferred to an<br \/>\nofficer in charge of a police station should be reduced into writing which<br \/>\nprovision was subsequently modified by Section 112 of the Code of 1872 (Act<br \/>\n10 of 1872) which thereafter read that `every complaint&#8217; preferred to an<br \/>\nofficer in charge of a police station shall be reduced in writing. The word<br \/>\n`complaint&#8217; which occurred in previous two Codes of 1861 and 1872 was<br \/>\ndeleted and in that place the word `information&#8217; was used in the Codes of<br \/>\n1882 and 1898 which word is now used in Sections 154, 155, 157 and 189(c)<br \/>\nof the present Code of 1973 (Act 2 of 1974). An overall reading of all the<br \/>\nCodes makes it clear that the condition which is sine qua non for recording<br \/>\na first information report is that there must be an information and that<br \/>\ninformation must disclose a cognizable offence.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Finally, this Court in para 33 said :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;33. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that if any information disclosing<br \/>\na cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police<br \/>\nstation satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said<br \/>\npolice officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in<br \/>\nthe prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of<br \/>\nsuch information.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The views expressed by this Court in paragraphs 31, 32 and 33 as quoted<br \/>\nabove leave no manners of doubt that the provision of Section 154 of the<br \/>\nCode is mandatory and the concerned officer is duty bound to register the<br \/>\ncase on the basis of such an information disclosing cognizable offence.\n<\/p>\n<p>Undisputedly, in the present case no case was registerd pursuant to the<br \/>\ncomplaint dated 9.9.1997 and 13.9.1997 filed by the appellant. It is also<br \/>\nnot disputed that the Contempt Petition CCP No. 307\/1997 filed by the<br \/>\nappellant is also pending disposal before the High Court. It is, however,<br \/>\nstated by the respondent that the non-disposal of the contempt petition is<br \/>\ndue to the non-prosecution by the appellant. Be that as it may, we are of<br \/>\nthe view that the contempt petition has been pending since 1997 and as such<br \/>\npetition should be disposed of with a sense of urgency otherwise the<br \/>\npetition itself will loose all its force and the purpose for which the<br \/>\ncontempt is initiated would be defeated.\n<\/p>\n<p>In this casee, admittedly, the complaint ws filed against the Police<br \/>\nOfficer. Learned counsel for the parties are not at variance that in such a<br \/>\nsituation the interest of justice would be better served if this Court<br \/>\ndirects the CBI to register the case and investigate the mater.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Vikas Singh, leanrd Additional Solicitor Generla although vehemently<br \/>\nopposed registration of the case but he fairly concedes that if at all the<br \/>\ncase be registered and investigation is to be carried out, the CBI would be<br \/>\nan appropriate authority to register a case and investigate. We are also of<br \/>\nthe view that since there is allegation against the police personnel, the<br \/>\ninterest of justice would be better served if the case is registerd and<br \/>\ninvestigated by an independent agency like the CBI.\n<\/p>\n<p>We, accordingly, direct that the CBI shall now register a case and<br \/>\ninvestigate of the complaint filed by the appellant on 9.9.1997 and<br \/>\n13.9.1997. The CBI can collect the complaint from the SHO, Police Station,<br \/>\nKapashera dated 9.9.1997 and 13.9.1997. The complainant will also provide<br \/>\nphotocopies of the complaint dated 9.9.1997 and 13.9.1997 in case of<br \/>\noriginal complaint is not traceable in the Police Station. Since, the mater<br \/>\nis pending from 1997 the CBI is directed to register the case and complete<br \/>\ninvestigation within a period of three months from today. We further<br \/>\nclarify that by the aforesaid directions we are not entering into the<br \/>\nmerits of the controversy of the case nor casting aspersions on anybody<br \/>\nincluding the local police.\n<\/p>\n<p>We also request the Delhi High Court to expedite the disposal of Contempt<br \/>\nPetition CCP 307\/1997 in any event not later than three months from today<br \/>\nfor which parties shall give co-operation. The Registry shall despatch<br \/>\ncopies of this order to the CBI and Delhi High Court forthwith.\n<\/p>\n<p>With the aforesaid direction the appeal is disposed of.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Ramesh Kumari vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) And Ors on 21 February, 2006 Author: Sema Bench: H.K. Sema, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1229 of 2002 PETITIONER: Ramesh Kumari RESPONDENT: State (N.C.T. of Delhi) and Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/02\/2006 BENCH: H.K. Sema &amp; Dr. AR. Lakshmanan JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-141093","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ramesh Kumari vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) And Ors on 21 February, 2006 - 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\/ramesh-kumari-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-21-february-2006-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramesh Kumari vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) And Ors on 21 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumari-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-21-february-2006-2\" \/>\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=\"2006-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-04T02:48:52+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumari-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-21-february-2006-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumari-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-21-february-2006-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramesh Kumari vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) And Ors on 21 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-04T02:48:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumari-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-21-february-2006-2\"},\"wordCount\":1754,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumari-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-21-february-2006-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumari-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-21-february-2006-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumari-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-21-february-2006-2\",\"name\":\"Ramesh Kumari vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) And Ors on 21 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-04T02:48:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumari-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-21-february-2006-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumari-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-21-february-2006-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumari-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-21-february-2006-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramesh Kumari vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) And Ors on 21 February, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Ramesh Kumari vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) And Ors on 21 February, 2006 - 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\/ramesh-kumari-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-21-february-2006-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramesh Kumari vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) And Ors on 21 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumari-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-21-february-2006-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-04T02:48:52+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumari-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-21-february-2006-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumari-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-21-february-2006-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramesh Kumari vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) And Ors on 21 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-04T02:48:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumari-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-21-february-2006-2"},"wordCount":1754,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumari-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-21-february-2006-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumari-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-21-february-2006-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumari-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-21-february-2006-2","name":"Ramesh Kumari vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) And Ors on 21 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-04T02:48:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumari-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-21-february-2006-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumari-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-21-february-2006-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumari-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-21-february-2006-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramesh Kumari vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) And Ors on 21 February, 2006"}]},{"@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\/141093","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=141093"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141093\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=141093"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=141093"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=141093"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}