{"id":147649,"date":"2010-10-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-somdutta-ganguly-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-28-october-2010"},"modified":"2016-08-01T17:27:27","modified_gmt":"2016-08-01T11:57:27","slug":"smt-somdutta-ganguly-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-28-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-somdutta-ganguly-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-28-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Smt Somdutta Ganguly vs State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Smt Somdutta Ganguly vs State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATEHHD THIS THE 28\"' DAY OF OCTOBER 2010\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE Hoixrsts MR. JUSTICE C.R. i<uMARASWAMY'j'__'__:'.;~ if \n\nCRIMINAL PETITION NO.4105\/2010' f"~.,,    i\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nSmt. Somdutta Ganguiy,\n\nW\/o Vikas Rajshekar,\n\nAged about 27 years,\n\nOccupation: Private Service,  _ \n\nResident of NO.735, 4*" Mai'n~._Roa'd, _   , \n\n3" Stage, BEML Layout, " 2  1 \n\nRajarajeshwari Nagara,  . .--  __\nBarigaiore-98.    ' V. "  I    Petitioner\n\n(By Sri. C.H. J:_.a'djhav:,:AdvO:;a_te.)_  i1 \n\nAND:\n\n1. State oi*\u00abKa--rnatak'e,\ufb02_  4\nBy Airport Police 'S_tatio'n_,""_;\nBancgaiore,  _V   \nRepiiiesented bythe State\n\n. Pu"o--ii'C i?r.Os"ecutOr, " """ "\n\nI High C.0urt--.Bui|ding,\n\n  Banga i_C:r,e~'v5i6Q "Q0 1.\n\n2. MQlAifeeV.S'oiit.wVare India Private Ltd.,\nA company 'incorporated under the\n\n\u00bb-  Comgjavniies Act, 1956\n Having its registration Office at\n\n _E.r_nbassy Goif Links Business Park,\nPine Vaiiey -~ 2"" floor,\n\n  Off. Indiranagar --- Koramangaia\n\n"Ring Road, BangaIOre~56O 071.\n\n.2'\n\n\n\nRepresented by its Authorized\nSignatory, Mr. Rajeev Maiik.  Respondents<\/pre>\n
(By Sri. Sathish R Girji, High Court Government Pleader for
\nR1, Sri. Ravi B. Naik, Senior Counsel for R2) ‘ <\/p>\n
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section~\u00ab~~4.82__’o’f, ”
\nCode of Criminal Procedure praying to set asideihe ,or’der —
\ndated 11.8.2010 passed by the IV Add_i.ti.O_n~a,l’Chief
\nMetropolitan Magistrate, Bangalo.re.._Cit1y  PCR
\nNo.12852\/10 thereby referring tifie _afo-resaid’~.__p*riV-date’,
\ncompiaint back to the respondent} i\\io.1″–Ai’rpo’rt Po\u00bb.!’ii”ce”-f
\nStation against the petitioners;for reainv.estig,ation’, ‘even”\u00ab<\/p>\n
after filing of “B” report for the afore_said “offences.  <\/p>\n
This Criminal Petition is comi.nfgv.ori..for ad’iriisAsioi:i this
\nday the Court made the fo_lIo.win_-g:   .4 V <\/p>\n
\u00a7’:”R”ii’iE   it<\/p>\n
This Cri.n”si”naI*A..,Petitio:n_\u00ab_1’is. fi-l_edLWunder Section~482 of
\nCode of  set aside the order
\ndated 1ii.–8.2–oioi  the iv Additional Chief<\/p>\n
Metropoiitanl4’*M_ag~istrate,P” Bangalore City in PCR<\/p>\n
if”Nd.g121ss2i;-P2010 thie’re’dy’ referring the private complaint<\/p>\n
lbaclkgeto hth_e.,V:ReVspo’ijdent No.1 — Airport Police Station for re-<\/p>\n
investyilgationlagainst the petitioner, even after filing of ‘B’<\/p>\n
ll”‘~\u00bb-\u00ab.___report. ”\n<\/p>\n
 x  I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,<\/p>\n
Still”—.’:;lea_rned senior counsel for Respondent No.2 and learned<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
%\u00ab<\/p>\n
High Court Government Pleacier for Respondent No.1 -\u00bb<\/p>\n
State.\n<\/p>\n
3. The primary facts of the case are as under:  <\/p>\n
3.1 A complaint was filed by the
\nMcAfee Software India Private Limiteed\u00e9 beror’e-:f:h\u00e9”,’_iv <\/p>\n
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,1’_’_’BalVng–a~!.o’r”e:;’y <\/p>\n
alleged in the complaint thattthe aC’cu_sec_l’li:oi’n_ed~…the
\ncomplainant company as ProVd.uct*’:._Marketing:,._lVla\u00a7nager.
\nDuring the course of her”employ_rfiej.;1t;”*Vsh:’eintroduced the
\nvendor by name 4’_’:Gy_antt'”‘Serv:icesif:\u00bbvv’h.ich:.’AV’.l3’e’longs to her
\nhusband to  ofulmaterials such as
\nwhite   documentation etc..\n<\/p>\n
The  bills and invoices of her<\/p>\n
husband _comp’an_:y.V.Whe’n the complainant company came<\/p>\n
  about’ theimrsdeeds of the accused, they were<\/p>\n
co..n’stra’ine’d.iV_to 4VfE~l.e”_the complaint.<\/p>\n
35.2  the complaint was received by the learned<\/p>\n
‘\u00e9VV””‘l’~$agistrate’; the Magistrate has referred the matter for<\/p>\n
.ji.–nvestig’ation to Koramangala Police Station. On the point<\/p>\n
*3 ,.x’<\/p>\n
Kr”\n<\/p>\n
of jurisdiction, the said crime was transferred to the Airport<\/p>\n
Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
3.3 The Airport Police have issued a notice to-ct’he”–,_<\/p>\n
complainant to produce various documents. Insp’–ite.:AofT.i’t,  *<\/p>\n
the complainant did not cooperate witntne <\/p>\n
Notice was issued to the compiainan’tyunde’r <\/p>\n
Code of Criminal Procedure to Vproduce the__ ceVrtiain’\u00a7._o’i’-i\u00bbg.iniai
\ndocuments vi2., original copy of  suhbm-ittedniby the
\naccused , Audit report that has been
\ncheated by the apvccused   which Audit
\nreport being  ‘V  compiliawiinant declined to
\nproduce the ground that the<\/p>\n
documentsvsoughtfurnished due to company’s<\/p>\n
global p.olicy.i\u00b0* V_:’Tvhe’rel’ore”\u00b0the investigating agency have<\/p>\n
 V’be.con$,.e:’h:p!.pless inMco’n’d’ucting any investigation and filed a<\/p>\n
33.4  ‘B’ report was filed, the learned Magistrate<\/p>\n
 “hens issued’ notice to the complainant. The complainant<\/p>\n
i’il’ed a protest petition on 9.8.2010 and sought for<\/p>\n
ffrejecting the ‘B’ report and to refer the matter for Cyber<\/p>\n
.?…\u00bb~”‘<\/p>\n
Crime Police for investigation or permit the complainant to<\/p>\n
lead evidence to prove his case. The learned Magistrate by<\/p>\n
an impugned order dated 11.8.2010 has referred<\/p>\n
matter back to the Airport Poiice Station for investig\u00aba–ti’on’_\u00a2’_  <\/p>\n
4. Feeling aggrieved by the same,’treeaccuiseeeg.rieVs__ <\/p>\n
preferred this Criminal Petitiongto qua-s.h”~–tne  daVted”i 1′<\/p>\n
11.8.2010 in so far as referring”i’r\u00bbt.he matter'”‘back\ufb02ItoVVVthe
\nAirport Police Station for ‘Em’\/esti\u00a7\u00a7Aa’tion’i:.._\n<\/p>\n
5. It is the” ccrntentiioniot’;th’e counsei for the<\/p>\n
petitioner that V.lV.earne’d5.’j;lii’a=gist’r’ateV is not competent<\/p>\n
enough  referVthe’–.n*iatt’er”for further investigation after<\/p>\n
the Police filed the V’VB_’ “re’po.rt’_.; C In support of his contention,<\/p>\n
_._he rei.ie\u20acs’Vo’lre thendecision of the Hon’bie Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
A\\th\u00bbeVjV’e.aVserlcizfREETA NAG .vs. STAGE or wesr BENGAL<\/p>\n
  SCC 129 wherein at paragraphs 25 and<\/p>\n
-26, itis   under:\n<\/p>\n
  What emerges from the abovementioned<\/p>\n
decisions of this Court is that once a charge-
\nsheet is filed under Section 173(2) CrPC and<\/p>\n
9′?\n<\/p>\n
{J<\/p>\n
\/.\n<\/p>\n
either charge is framed or the accused are
\ndischarged, the Magistrate may, on the basis of<\/p>\n
a protest petition, take cognizance of the<\/p>\n
offence compiained of or on the appiication.._W<\/p>\n
made by the investigating authorities
\nfurther investigation under Section 173(8). <\/p>\n
Magistrate cannot suo motu diiriect a_””fdrth’er ‘<\/p>\n
investigation under Section <\/p>\n
direct a reinvestigation into a caseton acc–Ci:i,n’t”<\/p>\n
of the bar of Section 167(2’)v..,,:o’fi.the Code.-.._ <\/p>\n
26. In the instant _ca\u00e9_se,;_ithe’ainvestigating
\nauthorities did not    ffurther
\ninvestigationgyand  it, ‘_iivas,VA”~~.otn_IVy’ “upon the<\/p>\n
appiicat__i.\u00bb3’n”\u00bbv  b’y’,_:t_he.,,. de facto. complainant<\/p>\n
und~ie’r”‘S~ectionil:i;7–3(“8.V)’waist”a~di”rection given by
\nthe’,Ieatnecir’Magiastrate ‘to reinvestigate the
\nmatter,’ As we”\u00abih’av’e\u00ab–._ga’ii’eady indicated above,<\/p>\n
stich aiikiourse C-.f”action was beyond the<\/p>\n
,.’j:t:risd’ict,,ionai”competence of the Magistrate.<\/p>\n
A*–.i\u00a71ot,vAon%it,z:w.a_s the Magistrate wrong in directing<\/p>\n
V  ,%ei.vnv.e_st.i,g.aition on the application made by the<\/p>\n
 factiotcompiainant, but he aiso exceeded his<\/p>\n
;’ti.r.i\u00a7d_icticin in entertaining the said application<\/p>\n
‘ ” +.f_i.led”‘by the de facto complainant.”<\/p>\n
if<\/p>\n
-.+<\/p>\n
Therefore iearned counsel for the petitioner prays to set<\/p>\n
aside the order of referring the matter back to the Airport<\/p>\n
Poiice Station for re–investigation. He further submits<\/p>\n
at the most the protest petition can be treated-.’_jaS_’__”‘a<\/p>\n
compiaint and if the compiainant desires to iea.d’,.A’_:eviid\u00bbe’nce,if <\/p>\n
he may be permitted lead evidence to <\/p>\n
6. Learned senior counsei’V”i’for’ the ‘iiio.2
\nsubmits that for the  3’ustice;ri’:thre\\:iearneciiiiiagistrate
\ncan refer the matter  even after
\nfiling the protest”   :’i’herA\u00abieia–rned:V.fiiiagistrate is at<\/p>\n
liberty to refer  matte’r55.’jfo.r’-furtiirer investigation even<\/p>\n
after fiiinwgi the firiai’:’repiort’;.:”V—..In -support of his contention,<\/p>\n
he reiies on “th_e”ri_ec’is_ion’ of:”t_heVDe!hi High Court in the case<\/p>\n
_._of RA3!\\_iEissiH i<ui4xx.r\u00a7 sIi\\ii3HAL .vs. STATE reported in 2001<\/p>\n
  it is heid as under:\n<\/p>\n
i”‘._A’i’f.*.’_’jrhe’ is empowered to direct the
\n“‘poiice’to.7~’fdrther investigate the matter after the
\nfiii’ngr__f’i-of the chaiian before it and even after<\/p>\n
it Vfitiayking cognizance of the offence. There is no
\nVfiprovision in the Code which bars the Magistrate
\nbefore whom the report under Sec. 173(2) of<\/p>\n
3\/<\/p>\n
the Code is filed to direct further investigation
\nof the offence even in a case where cognizance
\nhas already been taken. Al! procedurai laws are<\/p>\n
meant to do justice and not to stifle the same.  <\/p>\n
In a given situation where a Magistrate fin~dsj_:<\/p>\n
that the matter requires further investigationiris’: it<\/p>\n
view of the partisan attitude of_t.h.e__poIicethere  ‘_ V
\ncan be no bar to his directing the
\nagency to conduct further _investigation  ”
\ncase. The magistrate by  rag
\ndoes not trench upon the_._.iuri_sd.i_ction
\npoiice who are  further
\ninvestigate in the matter];  vAA.'[f_nagistrate
\nsimply by i’l’c\u00a5]Sii_(ii’i_C’Vl;AVV’H1;|”1_:EVj:::  V’ to further<\/p>\n
investigate\u00bbth\u00e9:_rna’tt:er’ i-.’.1.a.._sefii.se ismdirecting it<\/p>\n
to   “ju’i”–isd-iction-~~–w\u00a7hich has been
\nconferred oniiheg”po’I’iice'”under Section 173(8) of
\nthe ‘Coder. ‘  the powers of the
\nMagistrate i.w-iii”. Viavdverseiy affect the
\n._’adm_i_nistrationiofjustice. Magistracy cannot be
\ni*rnadjei\u00absoipoweriess that it becomes incapable of
\n*-i’correct.i3ngfja.wrong and advancing the cause of<\/p>\n
A .j4ustice.'”  ‘<\/p>\n
  The Code of Criminal Procedure does not preclude<\/p>\n
V’  ____”‘thefinvestigating agency to make further investigation after<\/p>\n
u”~filing of the charge sheet. Norrnaiiy the prosecution,<\/p>\n
rs\u00bb-”\n<\/p>\n
informant or accused cannot claim further investigation as a<\/p>\n
matter of right except that of Investigating Officer or the<\/p>\n
officer in–charge of a Police Station. In this case, since<\/p>\n
the complainant did not cooperate with the investig’ati’_o-n.;II”<\/p>\n
the Investigating Agency after investigation_.Vfiie’d,.  <\/p>\n
report. After ‘B’ report was filed, an;.opp:o’rtunigty’iwais-given: <\/p>\n
to the compiainant to file protest petitio-rif.. Accogrdingiy, the”- I<\/p>\n
compiainant submitted a protest””p.e.tition.   of
\nthe protest petition,  referred the
\nmatter back to the per Section-\n<\/p>\n
173(8) of Code” the officer in-\n<\/p>\n
charge of the _Po_iice\ufb02”Statio’n’.’jobt–a:iinskfurther evidence, orai<\/p>\n
or docurnen.taryV,V”Whi-e_”sgh’a[i**-..forwarci the same to the<\/p>\n
Magistrate. ‘\u00a33>.ut* in Vthefivinstaint’case, it is not at the instance<\/p>\n
4_._of the.iiinvestigatingiibfficer or the Station House Officer of<\/p>\n
‘,tjhe:’P.ouIice\u00bb:  that the matter has been referred for<\/p>\n
furthgfehr._inv’es_tigation. It is at the instance of the informant<\/p>\n
pr the.\u00b0’com:pIai’naht, the matter was referred to the Airport<\/p>\n
If “Po|i”cer..StaVt’ion for further investigation. Such a course is<\/p>\n
.’.jno'”t=Vperrnissible under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminai<\/p>\n
I *i..:fP’rocedure. The iearned counsei for the Respondent No.2<\/p>\n
My,<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
submits that for the cause ofjustice, the learned Magistrate<\/p>\n
is empowered to refer the matter to the concerned Poiice<\/p>\n
for further investigation, but the complainant having:’fa:’ijl’ed*._4<\/p>\n
to produce the documents when notice under  ‘<\/p>\n
Code of Criminal Procedure was issuedi\u00bb~a.nd h.aving*r.fai!ed’_’_to  V<\/p>\n
cooperate with the investigation, “now’_A_’ithe<\/p>\n
seeking to refer the matter to tii.e:”Cyber'”Crime’Fi,oiAic;e”-~is. not
\nproper because under Section  Co’d”er-Of Criminal
\nProcedure it is only  of the police
\nstation in case, ‘either oral or
\ndocumentary’.  -it to iiliilaigistrate. In the
\ncase of RVEETAuiii$G:’1–1l;yS.   BENGAL reported
\nin (zoo\u00e9gs  ,ira\u00e9f:1y”*’iioa’bie Supreme Court has<\/p>\n
observed thiatthe Vi’i:v’esti”g:ai_’i;ring authority did not apply for<\/p>\n
4….furthe.r\u00a7;inv’estigaVti’o.n:and it was oniy upon the application<\/p>\n
 tbVe’A\u00abde:facto compiainant under Section 173 (8) was<\/p>\n
a ‘ud~i.re.ction  the iearned Magistrate to reinvestigate<\/p>\n
the mattevri ‘””Such a course of action was beyond the<\/p>\n
ix”””ju,:ri’sdri.c.tional competence of the Magistrate. Since the<\/p>\n
..jHon:’b!e: Supreme Court has consistently taken the above<\/p>\n
 the ruling of the Delhi High Court in the case of<\/p>\n
(5,;-‘”\n<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
RAJNEESH KUMAR SINGHAL .VS. STATE reported in 2001<\/p>\n
Cr\u00a3.LJ 1192 may not helpfui to the Respondent<\/p>\n
No.2\/complainant. In this case, as stated eartier, <\/p>\n
an opportunity was given to the complainant to  ‘<\/p>\n
documents, he has failed to do so. Thereafter”h1\u00e9”chas”‘fii_\u00a2t\u00a3  <\/p>\n
a protest petition with a request to refer’:th’e  to<\/p>\n
Cyber Crime Police. In the absence of  the
\nStation House Officer of the concerned ‘Poiice’Stat,ion; in my
\nview, it is not proper for Magis~tr~ate’Ve’to’,:refer the matter
\nto the Airport eeeodce sta’t:iori;  investigation.
\nHowever the  duper:-,1 vltouivestabiish its case
\nby adducivng…e_vAidence;.: ,_There’to’re–.therriimpugned order dated
\n1t.8.2o1i0_ rerea-iririg’j’th:ee  to the Airport Police Station<\/p>\n
for investigaititgn is V\u20aci’a_ole: t’o::b;e’set aside.\n<\/p>\n
8..*1.n1the”re.sui’t,'”I pass the foiiowing :<\/p>\n
i Thi-s tcrimin :\u00a3|V”c~PetitEon is a I iowed.<\/p>\n
j  2. The impugfp-ed order dated 11.8.2010 passed in PCR
\n  No.128S2\/2010 referring the matter back to the Airport<\/p>\n
   Police Station for Envest\u00e9gation is set aside. However, the<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
compla\u00e9nant is at i\u00e9berty to adduce evidence and
\nestabi\u00e9sh his case before the trial Court.<\/p>\n
Gss\/ –<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Smt Somdutta Ganguly vs State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2010 Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATEHHD THIS THE 28″‘ DAY OF OCTOBER 2010 BEFORE THE Hoixrsts MR. JUSTICE C.R. i<uMARASWAMY'j'__'__:'.;~ if CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4105\/2010' f"~.,, i BETWEEN: Smt. Somdutta Ganguiy, W\/o Vikas Rajshekar, Aged about 27 […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-147649","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt Somdutta Ganguly vs State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2010 - 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\/smt-somdutta-ganguly-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-28-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt Somdutta Ganguly vs State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-somdutta-ganguly-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-28-october-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-01T11:57:27+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\/smt-somdutta-ganguly-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-28-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-somdutta-ganguly-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-28-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt Somdutta Ganguly vs State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-01T11:57:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-somdutta-ganguly-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-28-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1982,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-somdutta-ganguly-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-28-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-somdutta-ganguly-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-28-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-somdutta-ganguly-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-28-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Smt Somdutta Ganguly vs State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-01T11:57:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-somdutta-ganguly-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-somdutta-ganguly-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-28-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-somdutta-ganguly-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt Somdutta Ganguly vs State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Smt Somdutta Ganguly vs State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2010 - 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\/smt-somdutta-ganguly-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-28-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt Somdutta Ganguly vs State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-somdutta-ganguly-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-28-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-01T11:57:27+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\/smt-somdutta-ganguly-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-28-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-somdutta-ganguly-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-28-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt Somdutta Ganguly vs State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-01T11:57:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-somdutta-ganguly-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-28-october-2010"},"wordCount":1982,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-somdutta-ganguly-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-28-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-somdutta-ganguly-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-28-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-somdutta-ganguly-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-28-october-2010","name":"Smt Somdutta Ganguly vs State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-01T11:57:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-somdutta-ganguly-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-somdutta-ganguly-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-28-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-somdutta-ganguly-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt Somdutta Ganguly vs State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2010"}]},{"@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\/147649","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=147649"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147649\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=147649"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=147649"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=147649"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}