{"id":145696,"date":"2009-12-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manaram-sonkar-vs-prabhat-kiran-girdoniya-on-8-december-2009"},"modified":"2016-07-15T04:17:41","modified_gmt":"2016-07-14T22:47:41","slug":"manaram-sonkar-vs-prabhat-kiran-girdoniya-on-8-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manaram-sonkar-vs-prabhat-kiran-girdoniya-on-8-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Manaram Sonkar vs Prabhat Kiran Girdoniya on 8 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Manaram Sonkar vs Prabhat Kiran Girdoniya on 8 December, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n       HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR        \n\n\n                   Cr  MP  PR  No 5958 of 2009\n\n\n                      Manaram Sonkar\n                                ...Petitioners\n\n                     Versus\n\n                   1.      Prabhat Kiran Girdoniya\n\n                    2.      Arvind  Kulkarni\n\n                    3.      Shivnarayan  Sahu\n\n                    4.      State of Chhattisgarh through the\n                            Collector Raipur\n                                            ...Respondents\n\n\nPETITION   UNDER  SECTION  482   OF  THE  CODE  OF  CRIMINAL        \nPROCEDURE, 1973.    \n\n!        Shri B.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner\n\n\n^         Shri  Arvind  Kumar  Dubey,  P.L.  for  the State\/respondent No. 4\n\n\n\nHonble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J \n\n\n       Dated:08\/12\/2009\n\n\n:       Judgment\n\n\n                            ORAL- ORDER\n                              (Passed on  08\/12\/2009)\n\n1.    This  is a petition under Section 482 of the  Code  of\n\nCriminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `the Code') for quashment\n\nof  the order dated 25\/9\/09 passed by Sessions Judge, Raipur\n\nwhereby   learned   Sessions  Judge,  Raipur   allowed   the\n\napplication for grant of bail to the respondents NO. 1 to 3.\n\n2.   Order is challenged on the ground that order impugned\nis perverse and not sustainable under the law and Court has\nutterly failed to exercise power vested on it and has not\nconsidered the fact that respondent may temper with the\nwitnesses and possibility fleeing away the justice.\n3.   Facts<\/pre>\n<p> necessary for disposal of this petition is the<br \/>\ncriminal complaint case no. 52\/08 was pending before the<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur at the instance of<br \/>\npresent complainant\/petitioner against the respondents No. 1<br \/>\nto 3 for the offence punishable under Sections  420, 467,<br \/>\n468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondents No. 1 to<br \/>\n3 in custody and on application of the respondents No. 1 to<br \/>\n3 filed under Section 439 of the Code. After hearing the<br \/>\nparties learned Sessions Judge, Raipur has allowed the<br \/>\npetition for grant of bail to the respondents NO. 1 to 3.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   The order granting bail is impugned by the present<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   Learned counsel for the parties are heard. Order<br \/>\nimpugned and copy of other documents are perused.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   Learned counsel for the petitioner submits  that<br \/>\npreviously petitioner has impugned the order before the High<br \/>\nCourt in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction but<br \/>\npetitioner has withdrawn the criminal revision No. 550\/09 on<br \/>\n19\/11\/09 for filing the appropriate petition. Learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner  has been<br \/>\nable to make out an exceptional case for exercising the<br \/>\nextraordinary inherent jurisdiction against the order<br \/>\nimpugned. At the time of passing the order Court was under<br \/>\nobligation to consider all aspects of the case. Learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner also submits that after hearing<br \/>\nthe parties Court has granted the bail therefore Court who<br \/>\nhas granted the bail will not review its order under any<br \/>\ntechnical ground. There would be a futile exercise before<br \/>\nthe Court concerned for filing a application under Section<br \/>\n439 (2) of the Code therefore the order has been assailed<br \/>\nunder Section 482 of the Code before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in<br \/>\nthe matter of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of C.G. &amp; Others<br \/>\nreported in 2008 (1) C.G.L.J. 228 in which this Court  has<br \/>\nheld that  even the case of interlocutory order of grant of<br \/>\nbail the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code<br \/>\nis not effected by the provisions of Section 397(3) of the<br \/>\nCode but the High Court may refuse to exercise its<br \/>\njurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code on the basis of<br \/>\nself- imposed restriction is a different aspect. Learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner further placed reliance in the<br \/>\nmatter of Puran Vs. Rambilas and another reported in (2001)<br \/>\n6SCC 338 in which Apex Court has held that even in the case<br \/>\nof interlocutory order the High Courts inherent jurisdiction<br \/>\nunder Section 482  of the Code is not effected by  the<br \/>\nprevisions of Section 397 (3) of the Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.   On the other hand learned counsel for the<br \/>\nState\/respondent NO. 4 opposed the petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.   The copy of the order impugned, copy of the application<br \/>\nand other documents reveal that after hearing the parties<br \/>\nCourt below has granted the bail to the respondents No. 1 to\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.  Order is impugned mainly on the ground that Court below<br \/>\nhas not considered the most material aspect of the case<br \/>\nwhile granting bail that respondents has not complied the<br \/>\ncondition earlier imposed by the Court and Court has not<br \/>\nconsidered that respondents No. 1 to 3 may temper with the<br \/>\nwitnesses and they may fleed  away from justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.  While dealing with the cancellation of bail by invoking<br \/>\nrevisional jurisdiction this Court has held in case of<br \/>\nSatish Jaggi  (Supra), after relying the case of Puran<br \/>\n(Supra)  that inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is not<br \/>\neffected by the provisions of Section 397(3) of the Code.<br \/>\nPara -5 reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>   In  Puran&#8217;s  case (supra),  a contention was  raised<br \/>\n   before  the  Apex  Court on the authorities  in  the<br \/>\n   case  of  Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon  Vs.  State  of<br \/>\n   Gujarat,  Amar  Nath Vs. State of Harayana  &amp;  India<br \/>\n   Pipe  Fitting Co. Vs. Fakruddin M.A. Baker, that  an<br \/>\n   other  granting bail was an interlocutory order  and<br \/>\n   the  High  Court could not exercise  to  the  powers<br \/>\n   under  Section  482 of the criminal  procedure  Code<br \/>\n   and  thus  the Court could not cancel the  order  of<br \/>\n   bail.  it  was also argued that Section 439  of  the<br \/>\n   Criminal   Procedure  Code  gives  the  powers   for<br \/>\n   cancellation of bail both to the Sessions Court  and<br \/>\n   the  High  Court therefore, the High Court  and  the<br \/>\n   Sessions  Court were co-ordinate Courts  under  this<br \/>\n   Section  and  the High Court could not thus  sit  in<br \/>\n   appeal  or  revision over an order of the  Court  of<br \/>\n   Sessions.  It was also submitted that under  Section<br \/>\n   439  (2)  Cr.  P.C.  it is only the  orders  of  the<br \/>\n   Magistrate,  which could be set aside  by  the  High<br \/>\n   Court  or the Court of Session. The Apex Court ruled<br \/>\n   that  in the hierarchy of courts, the High Court  is<br \/>\n   the  superior  court.  A restrictive  interpretation<br \/>\n   which  would  have the effect of nullifying  Section<br \/>\n   439  (2)   cannot  be  given when  Section  439  (2)<br \/>\n   grants  to the High Court the power to cancel  bail,<br \/>\n   it  necessarily  follows that  such  powers  can  be<br \/>\n   exer4vised also in respect of orders passed  by  the<br \/>\n   Court  of Sessions. Of course cancellation  of  bail<br \/>\n   has  to  be on principles set out for that and  only<br \/>\n   in  appropriate case. The Apex Court  further  ruled<br \/>\n   that  even  it is an interlocutory order,  the  High<br \/>\n   Court&#8217;s inherent jurisdiction under Section  482  is<br \/>\n   not affected by the provisions of Section 397(3)  of<br \/>\n   the  Code of Criminal procedure. That the High Court<br \/>\n   may  refuse  to  exercise   its  jurisdiction  under<br \/>\n   Section   482   on   the   basis   of   self-imposed<br \/>\n   restriction  is a different aspect. The Apex  Cour5t<br \/>\n   finally  ruled  that it cannot be  denied  that  for<br \/>\n   securing  the  ends of justice, the High  Court  can<br \/>\n   interference    with   the   order   which    causes<br \/>\n   miscarriage of justice or is palpably illegal or  is<br \/>\n   unjustified.  The Apex Court also  referred  to  the<br \/>\n   decisions  of Madhu Limaye Vs. State of  Maharashtra<br \/>\n   &amp; Krishan Vs. Krishnaveni.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.  While dealing with the question of cancellation of bail<br \/>\nunder  Section  439(2) of the Code in case of Puran  (Supra)<br \/>\nApex  Court has held that High Court&#8217;s inherent jurisdiction<br \/>\nunder  Section 482 (2) is not effected by the provisions  of<br \/>\nSection 397 (3) of the code. Para 17 reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>        17.   Further,  even if its is an interlocutory<br \/>\n        order,  the  High Court&#8217;s inherent jurisdiction<br \/>\n        under  Section  482  is  not  affected  by  the<br \/>\n        Provisions  of Section 397 (3) of the  Code  of<br \/>\n        Criminal  Procedure. That the  High  Court  may<br \/>\n        refuse  to  exercise  its  jurisdiction   under<br \/>\n        Section  482  on  the  basis  of  self  imposed<br \/>\n        restriction  is a different aspect.  It  cannot<br \/>\n        be   denied  that  for  securing  the  ends  of<br \/>\n        justice, the High Court can interfere with  the<br \/>\n        order  which causes miscarriage of  justice  or<br \/>\n        is  palpably  illegal or is unjustified  <a href=\"\/doc\/646292\/\">(Madhu<br \/>\n        Limaye v. State of Maharashtra and Krishnav<\/a>  v.<br \/>\n        krishnaveni).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>13.  Admittedly, inherent jurisdiction of the High Court  is<\/p>\n<p>not  effected by the provisions of Section 397  (3)  of  the<\/p>\n<p>Code,  specific provision for cancellation of the  bail  has<\/p>\n<p>been  provided under Section 439(2) of the Code but  despite<\/p>\n<p>the  fact petitioners is  not prevented from making  out  an<\/p>\n<p>exceptional   case   for  invoking  extraordinary   inherent<\/p>\n<p>jurisdiction.   In all cases of illegality  or  irregularity<\/p>\n<p>High   Court  is  not  required  to  exercise  its  inherent<\/p>\n<p>jurisdiction. It should be used sparingly  in an exceptional<\/p>\n<p>circumstances,  while dealing with exercise of  power  under<\/p>\n<p>Section  482  of  the  Code  in the  matter  of  <a href=\"\/doc\/279427\/\">M\/s.  Zandu<\/p>\n<p>Pharmaceutical  Works Ltd. and others v. Md. Sharaful  Haque<\/p>\n<p>and others<\/a>1 the Apex Court has held thus,<\/p>\n<p>          &#8220;8.   Exercise of power under Section 482  of<br \/>\n          the  Code  in  a case of this nature  is  the<br \/>\n          exception and not the rule. The Section  does<br \/>\n          not  confer any new powers on the High Court.<br \/>\n          It  only  saves the inherent power which  the<br \/>\n          Court  possessed before the enactment of  the<br \/>\n          Code.  It envisages three circumstances under<br \/>\n          which   the  inherent  jurisdiction  may   be<br \/>\n          exercised, namely, (i) to give effect  to  an<br \/>\n          order  under the Code, (ii) to prevent  abuse<br \/>\n          of   the  process  of  court,  and  (iii)  to<br \/>\n          otherwise secure the ends of justice.  It  is<br \/>\n          neither  possible nor desirable to  lay  down<br \/>\n          any  inflexible rule which would  govern  the<br \/>\n          exercise   of   inherent   jurisdiction.   No<br \/>\n          legislative enactment dealing with  procedure<br \/>\n          can  provide for all cases that may  possibly<br \/>\n          arise.   Courts,  therefore,  have   inherent<br \/>\n          powers  apart from express provisions of  law<br \/>\n          which  are necessary for proper discharge  of<br \/>\n          functions  and duties imposed  upon  them  by<br \/>\n          law.   That  is  the  doctrine  which   finds<br \/>\n          expression   in  the  section  which   merely<br \/>\n          recognizes and preserves inherent  powers  of<br \/>\n          the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or<br \/>\n          criminal  possess,  in  the  absence  of  any<br \/>\n          express  provision,  as  inherent  in   their<br \/>\n          constitution,   all  such   powers   as   are<br \/>\n          necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong<br \/>\n          in course of administration of justice on the<br \/>\n          principle   &#8220;quando   lex   aliquid    alicui<br \/>\n          concedit,  concedere videtur et id  sine  quo<br \/>\n          res  ipsae  esse non potest&#8221;  (when  the  law<br \/>\n          gives  a  person anything it gives  him  that<br \/>\n          without   which   it  cannot  exist).   While<br \/>\n          exercising  powers  under  the  section,  the<br \/>\n          court  does not function as a court of appeal<br \/>\n          or  revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the<br \/>\n          section  though  wide  has  to  be  exercised<br \/>\n          sparingly,  carefully and  with  caution  and<br \/>\n          only  when such exercise is justified by  the<br \/>\n          tests  specifically laid down in the  section<br \/>\n          itself.  It  is  to  be exercised  ex  debito<br \/>\n          justitiae to do real and substantial  justice<br \/>\n          for  the administration of which alone courts<br \/>\n          exist.  Authority  of the  court  exists  for<br \/>\n          advancement of justice and if any attempt  is<br \/>\n          made to abuse that authority so as to produce<br \/>\n          injustice,  the  court has power  to  prevent<br \/>\n          abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the<br \/>\n          court  to allow any action which would result<br \/>\n          in   injustice   and  prevent  promotion   of<br \/>\n          justice.  In  exercise of  the  powers  court<br \/>\n          would be justified to quash any proceeding if<br \/>\n          it  finds that initiation\/continuance  of  it<br \/>\n          amounts  to abuse of the process of court  or<br \/>\n          quashing of these proceedings would otherwise<br \/>\n          serve the ends of justice. When no offence is<br \/>\n          disclosed  by  the complaint, the  court  may<br \/>\n          examine   the  question  of  fact.   When   a<br \/>\n          complaint  is  sought to be  quashed,  it  is<br \/>\n          permissible  to  look into the  materials  to<br \/>\n          assess  what the complainant has alleged  and<br \/>\n          whether any offence is made out even  if  the<br \/>\n          allegations are accepted in toto.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>14.  In the present case the offence has been registered  on<\/p>\n<p>the  basis of complaint made to the Court by the petitioner,<\/p>\n<p>respondents  No. 1 to 3 were in custody after  rejection  of<\/p>\n<p>their  bail  petition by the trial Court. After  considering<\/p>\n<p>the  material learned Sessions Judge has granted bail to the<\/p>\n<p>petition under Section 439 of the Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.  Order impugned reveals that prima facie Court below has<br \/>\nnot committed any grave illegality or irregularity in<br \/>\nexercising the jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code, I<br \/>\ndo not find any exceptional case for invoking extraordinary<br \/>\ninherent jurisdiction in terms of Section 482 of the Code.<br \/>\nConsequently, this petition is liable to be dismissed and it<br \/>\nis hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                  JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Chattisgarh High Court Manaram Sonkar vs Prabhat Kiran Girdoniya on 8 December, 2009 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr MP PR No 5958 of 2009 Manaram Sonkar &#8230;Petitioners Versus 1. Prabhat Kiran Girdoniya 2. Arvind Kulkarni 3. Shivnarayan Sahu 4. State of Chhattisgarh through the Collector Raipur &#8230;Respondents PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE [&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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-145696","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Manaram Sonkar vs Prabhat Kiran Girdoniya on 8 December, 2009 - 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\/manaram-sonkar-vs-prabhat-kiran-girdoniya-on-8-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manaram Sonkar vs Prabhat Kiran Girdoniya on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manaram-sonkar-vs-prabhat-kiran-girdoniya-on-8-december-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-14T22:47:41+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manaram-sonkar-vs-prabhat-kiran-girdoniya-on-8-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manaram-sonkar-vs-prabhat-kiran-girdoniya-on-8-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manaram Sonkar vs Prabhat Kiran Girdoniya on 8 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-14T22:47:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manaram-sonkar-vs-prabhat-kiran-girdoniya-on-8-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1779,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manaram-sonkar-vs-prabhat-kiran-girdoniya-on-8-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manaram-sonkar-vs-prabhat-kiran-girdoniya-on-8-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manaram-sonkar-vs-prabhat-kiran-girdoniya-on-8-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Manaram Sonkar vs Prabhat Kiran Girdoniya on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-14T22:47:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manaram-sonkar-vs-prabhat-kiran-girdoniya-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manaram-sonkar-vs-prabhat-kiran-girdoniya-on-8-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manaram-sonkar-vs-prabhat-kiran-girdoniya-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manaram Sonkar vs Prabhat Kiran Girdoniya on 8 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Manaram Sonkar vs Prabhat Kiran Girdoniya on 8 December, 2009 - 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\/manaram-sonkar-vs-prabhat-kiran-girdoniya-on-8-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manaram Sonkar vs Prabhat Kiran Girdoniya on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manaram-sonkar-vs-prabhat-kiran-girdoniya-on-8-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-14T22:47:41+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manaram-sonkar-vs-prabhat-kiran-girdoniya-on-8-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manaram-sonkar-vs-prabhat-kiran-girdoniya-on-8-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manaram Sonkar vs Prabhat Kiran Girdoniya on 8 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-14T22:47:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manaram-sonkar-vs-prabhat-kiran-girdoniya-on-8-december-2009"},"wordCount":1779,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manaram-sonkar-vs-prabhat-kiran-girdoniya-on-8-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manaram-sonkar-vs-prabhat-kiran-girdoniya-on-8-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manaram-sonkar-vs-prabhat-kiran-girdoniya-on-8-december-2009","name":"Manaram Sonkar vs Prabhat Kiran Girdoniya on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-14T22:47:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manaram-sonkar-vs-prabhat-kiran-girdoniya-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manaram-sonkar-vs-prabhat-kiran-girdoniya-on-8-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manaram-sonkar-vs-prabhat-kiran-girdoniya-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manaram Sonkar vs Prabhat Kiran Girdoniya on 8 December, 2009"}]},{"@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\/145696","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=145696"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145696\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=145696"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=145696"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=145696"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}