{"id":149208,"date":"2008-10-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-toll-inida-logistics-pvt-ltd-vs-the-station-house-officer-on-15-october-2008"},"modified":"2018-08-31T14:35:28","modified_gmt":"2018-08-31T09:05:28","slug":"ms-toll-inida-logistics-pvt-ltd-vs-the-station-house-officer-on-15-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-toll-inida-logistics-pvt-ltd-vs-the-station-house-officer-on-15-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Toll Inida Logistics Pvt Ltd vs The Station House Officer on 15 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S Toll Inida Logistics Pvt Ltd vs The Station House Officer on 15 October, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: H N Das<\/div>\n
I-T3.' '  --. \u00ab Si}. {V'i<L-iyanath\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF  AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS 'THE 15?" DAY OF OCTOBER 2008  \n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HOEVBLE MR. JUSTICE. H5; N'%GA;?vIOH;%'\u00a3$%_jf1!AS:.:: .\n\nCRHHNAL PETI'ITI{}N  '1A393;2\u00a7Aejs   4' ' 1' V\n\nBETWEEN I\n\n--................ ---------------- Iuuw\n\n1. EH33. TaI1('}fndia}Leg.istic-5 Pvt Ltd   _ V\n\n{Formerly knmvn as Semb\u00e9erp LogVisti\u00e9i:sL\u00ab. j\u00e9 \nIndia Pvt Ltd.)   _   ;  "\n\nA company incolporated undex-'.t}:1c  "  _ . ._ _ __\nprovisions of the Indian Canipaniss V.r'mt_.;'.L IE-'5i6_ & " '\nhaving its Regd. \u00a3f3f\ufb01;:s at [\u00a31 Fieqt;   \nN0. 51, EvI011i_\u00a7t\u00e9.;:h  \u00a7;_g;m';e,\nChennai -\u00ab 690 i':_(}_3,'*~'   \n\nRap. By its 1\\z:i\u00a7'ij:ggiiig*.;\u00a3)ir\u00e9'ctQr-\nN31561: Che. V   \n2. S21. Nei$Car_1 C310 ' ._\nSic. Cher Chan Chas ._\nAgcjd -abxeut S8 gsiarsw "\n\n. 35:22. 'f_en}:ara$Warlu\n'9?xg6ti abqut ~53 ~ye':grs\n\n' V  V . 4.  AI133\ufb01a E3af)9o\n\n'W33. gum: Bzibu\nAg\u00a2c1~~.ab.g; Er' \"\nSugajplnf  R933\nGr\u00e9\u00e9satsg Naida, Uttar Ftaaesh\n\n.  ., . VI-3Z'avin\"g its Branch Office at\n\n '  '$39, 933 \ufb01afaxxsirzn\nA  .\u00a7\"agi,'E\u00e9xng.ala:>rs -- 2?.  Rcspendents\n\nV   .S}2j?\u00e9:\u00a3t:A}9ra.\u00a7ad, Adm, fer R-1-';\n  AV. ikgz\ufb01aigrisnna, HCGP, for R4)\n\nM   Cr1'mir1aIPetitian is filed um: seem; 432 (\u00a7i'.r.P.C. with a\n\n -.\ufb01:'\"\u00e9ye:'\u00a7t0 quash the Fast hzfamnation Repor: dated 2si\u00a3,0L20G8 in Crime\n\n-?5?(}.\"'i9E2(}\u00a3}8 and etc.\n\nThis Criminai Petition Having been heard and reserved far orders,\n\n.. this day, }\u00a7\ufb01.G\ufb01..E%:IGE%:'.}E DAS J prancamccd the fciimvizzg\n\n'\ufb01g\/JV\n\n\n\nregular basis. On lI.{)2.20i}7 in tha reconci\ufb01atien af stat:-ks 126 pieces\nwere foun\u00e9 shert at the and 0f \ufb01rst petitioner campany. Again at the\n\nrequest of first petitioner company recenciiiatian cf steak was don\ufb01en\n\n28,02,206? and found that them was at shortage sf material fyfgtttii\u00e9ti --u;$1t. ..\n\nRs.27,4~8,S7=$f-. Suhsequentty the first petitioner and 'E316   M\n\nrespondent entered into variants c01'r\u20ac:spandence-Wit\u00a7:-- regatfd te\u00e9stttmatg\u00e9 <\/pre>\n
steels; and reimbursement of vatue of $h0rtage 0ff\u00a2stt\u00a7::_\u00a7i}}fv.tiE\ufb01VvSifCG7t Ct._. <\/p>\n
respondent inveited the bank guarante\u00e9ts_ttfi:>m_VittedA’t:3ei_’tii:::_t”it=st :g\u00a7\u00a7ti’tii@n\u00e9r
\ncampany and reaiisad a sum of  16.00  ttxe  itand first
\npetitioner C-Qmpzzny issued a nottc’\u00a2\u00ab;\u00a7n.98:–. the arbitration
\nctause under the C and  at that stage
\nthe second 1’\u20ac\u00a7p{)I1Ctt:.IV1t?.:vl(‘3\u20ac’iA:,\u00a2%\u00e9:{it_.’a    respondent petite
\non 23.Gl.2Gt\u00a7S  atlleging that the petitianers by<\/p>\n
wnspizing committed  sf\ufb02cheating, crimina}. bfeach 0f trust,<\/p>\n
ztzisapprqn\ufb01\ufb01tattiun of g\u00e9azist making wrongfui gain for tiiernseives and<\/p>\n
V. ‘wrcttg\ufb01tittt E-t:rs_\u00e9  _the=_ second respondent. This camplaint of secnnd<\/p>\n
respii:1_dt*3jtM$afn1\u00e9”t:3_ b\u00e9.t’_re’giisterett by the first respmdent A peiice in crime<\/p>\n
 19f2’i3(}8 fe:\u00bbr’:ht\u00a7”bA\ufb01encas gunishabie under Sectiazm 408, 450 and 428<\/p>\n
t’ ‘ Aggt’ievc\u00e9—- 63: this complaint and registratisnn sf crtrne, the 13\u20ac:ti{iGI’t\u20acI*S<\/p>\n
tiatte {\ufb02ed  petition under Seetien 482 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
4, Heard arguments an bath the side and petused the entire<\/p>\n
” gapers.\n<\/p>\n
&”\u00a2<\/p>\n
giwds vaiued at R512? Eakhs gius as an 28.G2.3\u00a3\u00a5(3′}’. On the other hanci the
\nfirst petitioner denies the Eiabiiiiy 0f sho\ufb02age ef gaods and aim value of<\/p>\n
the shertaga crf goads; As against this rival wntention the sagond<\/p>\n
resyondent inveked the bank guarantee and realised 3 sum of _<\/p>\n
iakhg frem the f3’$\u20ac preti\ufb01ener cempany. Further the   .<\/p>\n
eampany’ im\u00bb-Gksd clause 35 of the C am! F ;%g3feement’3I;:1 —\u00a7{}*:,i\u00a5s’sI;ec\u00a3V 5;  \u00e9 <\/p>\n
neiice for appointment of an arbitrator. Tkl\u00e9zsa a::i.1:x\u00a7t5\u00a3ed'[J fj;VG\u00a3$iv’C*ti”1\u00b0V%?:\u00a7\u20ac-\u00a3}1’\u20ac\u00a7 zy<\/p>\n
ciearly estabiishes the fact that the disijutg betv\u00e9e=:.\u00a7xi”th\u20ac= ;3a1″ti’\u00e9$;Ai\u00a7;_vQf r:\u00a51″;vii <\/p>\n
nature and the same do not haw am; crifiii\u00e9\u00e9i angle.’ ‘E1%rjVV:sz1;’:)p1’a\u00e9$\u00a7\u00a7sis2g the
\nfact of ixrvoking hank gz1ara11i\u00a7’\u00e9’~._of .’Rs,};,_{}.VC\u00ab\u20ac1__ and alsce the first
\npetitioner company im-asking the a:_b’TiI1iVati5_:iV ciiause  the ageement by<\/p>\n
issuing as notice, tlgsa’  r\u00a7sp\u00a2:r21\u00ab.\u00a7\u00e9:1t”~c;5Iri\ufb01ran\u00a7f[.\u00a7ias iadgcd the first<\/p>\n
i11f0rma\u20acie\u00a3iv._rep=:1\u00a7*t wVi\u00e9;’i1VfEf:a:L:pe\u00a7’i\u00e9ej.:}\u00a7f1~-24-.O1.2O{)8. Therefore it is manifegt<\/p>\n
that the secon\u20aci,;fesp;)nV\u00e9ie_n\u00a3V Asem\ufb01igzzy’ is abusing the pmcess of law :9<\/p>\n
_ V harass uiniirnidai\u00e9 tbs: frst gzartiticsner cempany and its empiayeas and<\/p>\n
I 01*; t:1″;:Is_ \u00a7K:r11_I:’1s:\u00a5Af:%:c \ufb01ifst inforrnaiion report and the regstration of crime are<\/p>\n
iia}b1\u00a2’t\u00e9;_1\u00a7e  V A
\n‘   the shiirtage sf geods was neticed on \u00a31.,G2..-‘EGG?<\/p>\n
 . , (2*:1 ri11g the azgzaiifse sf recont\ufb01iation (If stacks, Subsequ\ufb01ntly on 23.\u20ac)2.?_{}0′?<\/p>\n
  ti\u00e9\u00e9 s\u00e9\u00e9ai\ufb01gi rcspea\u00e9ent zwtieed the shortage ef stock to the tune sf Rs.2C?<\/p>\n
  plus. Thereaftsr bath the partias Sfif\ufb01f\ufb01d im-:3 \u20ac0E’I’\u20acSi)O1’\u00a7d\u20ac3I’1G\u20ac with<\/p>\n
 “ragard :0 the iiability of shortage: sf goeds. The second rewendent by<\/p>\n
&;r’<\/p>\n
S\ufb01p\ufb01f\ufb01\ufb01\ufb01i\ufb01g the cerrespendence:-.6 betweeh the first petitiener company anei<\/p>\n
the S12′-(}G1’i{i respandmt and aftsr a iapsa 0f 11 months, iedged \u20ache;::f'”i1*$t<\/p>\n
hzfazmaticn report with the pehcs. On this groun\u00e9 a1se~\u00ab~~-ihsg\u00bb.’_3hi\u00a7’il” <\/p>\n
informatiim repart and the registration of cziminai case H355″‘i.iVab’i\u00e9_1″\u00a3o”be” <\/p>\n
quashed.\n<\/p>\n
8. The Suprezrmz Chart in the saga of Hfi\u00e9af;*a._  ‘;”‘ezin\u00e9:”< V<\/p>\n
and ethers Vs, State sf Bihar and anC\u00a3i1s:f,"h.2G0G \u20ac;?:r.._IV_,.'.:,  as
\nunder: V V V<\/p>\n
"$6. In d\u00a2_termining.t:1:1\u00a2\u00bbqu:23hQn he kept in
\nmind that {ha ~dis'i\u00ab\u00a7:1:\u00e9t\u00a3en;\u00a5)ctsase\u00bb\u00e9ii me\u00a7\u00e9'hfea.c.11.V.\u00a7f <2-smtracz and
\nthe 0f*fen<:,e"':\u00a7}f \ufb01n; It depends upon {ha
\ni:1tei;tio1:_ -sf  at_:t'iie=..t_i;:ze.' i}f inducetnent which may
\nhe ju\u00a7ig\u00a7d'–b}r i1Lz:\u00a7f’wzzduct but for this subsequent
\nco1:ductv’is”–\u00ab\u20ac1\u00e9s\u00a3v\u00abi11;\u00e9 -‘5\\”;~I\u00e9..,t\u00e9st,’~7hhrIere breach (sf centract cahnut
\ngig}? rise tax’ ‘c1fh’hinal: prosecumn fer cheating unless<\/p>\n
V ufr\u00e9hudtiienfh’ \u00abqr dishhh\u00e9\u00e9f ihtentizm is Shawn right at the<\/p>\n
 * .i:\u00a7hc–“!:ran3actieI:, that is the time when the Cff\ufb01\ufb01\ufb01\ufb01
\nH =  ‘\u00a3\u00e9”_’h;:.*\u00a3’s.Vheen conlrnitted. Theref\ufb01re, it is the intehtkm
\n‘i>z:\u00a71ic}1′ is  gist ef the Gffence. Te hold 3 psrsen guilty hf
\ncheatih\u00e9g it is necessary ta shew that he had frauduleht GI’<\/p>\n
 VT dish\ufb01nes\u00e9 intentiazz at the tima hf making the premise. From
\n iIi’S: mere failure E9 keep up pren\ufb01sze suhseqaently such a<\/p>\n
E auipabie itttentieh right at the begimlirzg, that is, when he<\/p>\n
made the premise caxmot be presaxned.”\n<\/p>\n
&’N:\\}'”\n<\/p>\n
In the C&S6 of Uma Shaniiar G:>pa.I.ika VS. State at’ Bihar and<\/p>\n
another, (2085) 10 SCC’ 336 the Supreme Ceurt heid as under:<\/p>\n
 Now the question to be examinsci by us is as to<\/p>\n
whether on the facts disciosed in the petiticn of complaint:  = .’<\/p>\n
any crimirtai offence whatseever is made out muchksts’ “—- V’ ‘<\/p>\n
offences under Secticns 42G5120–B mt.   L”\n<\/p>\n
ailegatitm in the complaint petitien gsgainstttit\u00e9\u00e9 ar.:_:s:t1:$\u00e9~t: that the<\/p>\n
accttteti   _fo;” moving the Consumer
\n .re;a:;o:t~\u00abit\u00a24.;1;e.tgtiaimot Rs.4,20,{)0(}. 1: is wet:
\nscttled t1iat_4ex\u20ac\u00a2r}tVVbr\u00e9\u00e9ct1 :_i:::;nt:ract weak! that give rise tea<\/p>\n
at}: ‘effaetace taf’-\u00bb<:-_!1VVeat'i:1g \u00e9nci only in those cases breach 0f
\n Wquld at1iC\u00a3t1t1t to cheating where them"; was any<\/p>\n
'  'i.'1x'i=Vs:}t'3';3\u00a3vIf{)E1 :p.1\u00a7j:cd at the wry inception. If the intentien to
\n _  latsr an, the same cannet amount ta
\nA elteatitzg.  present case it has newimre been stated that<\/p>\n
at tiaetgary incaption there was any intention on behalf of<\/p>\n
V " the act\u00e9used persons to cheat which is as candition precedent<\/p>\n
V' *fi\u00a5!"'3Il e\ufb01ence under Secztion 42$ IPC.\n<\/p>\n
7. In out View petition sf comzalaint dogs not
\ndisclose any eriminai effence at ail much iess any offence
\neither under Section -428 or Section 128-B E90 and the<\/p>\n
present case is a case gureiy ciw\ufb01 tiispute between the<\/p>\n
NJ.\n<\/p>\n
63\/<\/p>\n
patties fez’ which remedy Iies before 3 civil court by \ufb01iing a
\nprsperiy constituted suit. In our epinion, in View of these
\nfacts sllewing the police \ufb01nvestigation ts continue weuld
\namount is an abuse of the pfccess of court and tar prevent <\/p>\n
the same it was just and expedient for the Hi@ C-curt  <\/p>\n
quash the same by exercising the pewers under Seetig\ufb01 5.7  “”<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. which it has erroneously refused.”\n<\/p>\n
9. Keeping in mind the {aw Esid d0;s’r;;”by’  ‘\u00a3T_t3isz’;  <\/p>\n
decisions referred to supra it is neeessssy ta examine the Tfaet. siruetien is<\/p>\n
the present case, In the complaint 1od’geti:”i2}r the muse  on<\/p>\n
23.91.2908 it is not stateci thst..fr0m.”t1ie  Vii:e_epti0n’there’V was any<\/p>\n
intention en the part of the pet\u00a3tit\u00a7ner}s~<t<5:'ehe\u00a7.i'–%it\u00e9tleeetve the second<\/p>\n
respendent;"*\u00a3;}tt:stt neeiessatgt'\u00bbi;ttgte:;iie7t\u00a7t"fer the offence under Section
\n426 3\u00b0C iSVV"\u00e9\u00a7bS.%\u00a7U-itt Es:je3<\u00a7i;1g"ef_:\u00e9\u00a7zs.eempiaint tmly suggests. that there is<\/p>\n
etziy breach afterztts offcetzftaet the accused and as such the same<\/p>\n
.. .. .;eeuIt\u00a7:L_:\u00a3tet;__s.m=a,;:nt toxehestizig. Therefcre the gsreeeedings against the<\/p>\n
. V ' -.Asee\ufb01s"ed. srevtiabte be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
‘ ._  vf:t’3\u00e9.VV’fti%ev_v.S;1ptfettie Ctzurt in Maksud Saiyed  State of Gujarat and<\/p>\n
A V} _ 0thet’s;”2{}0?’f (.11v):”Sca1e 313 held as under:<\/p>\n
u “13. Witere a jurisdiction is exercised en s
\nV’  e\u00e9mplaint petition {seat in terms ef Section 155(3) 0:’
\nSectian 299 cf the Cede of criminal \u00a7’re<:-edute, the
\n':'v\u00a3sg1's\ufb02'ate is reqe\u00e9reci tea epgziy-' his mind, Indian Penal Cede<\/p>\n
sees not centain any prmzisiens for attaching; viearieus<\/p>\n
<35-'"\n<\/p>\n
if}<\/p>\n
liability 0:: {he part of the Managing Director er the
\nDiraaters ef the Company when the accused is the
\nCempany. The leamad Magistrate failed is pose unte <\/p>\n
hirnseif that correct qfaestian viz, as in whether the  ‘<\/p>\n
cempiaint petition, even if gym face value and raia\u00e9:-am.  ‘  <\/p>\n
correct in its entirety, would lead to the ccsnclusien  fisxsf’
\nraspendents harein Wars persenaliy liabliz for  ‘
\nThe Bank is a bedy corporate. ‘\u00bb=’i::I_ariat:1_s ‘1ifa,.12i’E.if\u00a7;?  0f :theV  X
\nManaging Directcr and Direatcgr W0did__ai’\u00a7s\u00a7 prox}i(i\u00a7ci”a.n3? VV
\nprovision exists in that beii[a If’~ th\u00e9~ status.
\nindisputabiy must contain pravi\u00e9iur\u00e9b\ufb02xing. :s1′;t\u00bb.:\u00a71_VV:*\u00bbe”1R\u00a721ri;:ir:2:.zTs
\niiabiiities. Even fer the'”sa.ikc\u00a7 p1;r;\u00a7{$s.\u00e95,: “0b1igatafg’cn’Vthe<\/p>\n
part cf the c0mpla\u00a3:1anf”t0M :’:zakc:.\u00a7$1;f\u00a7i\u00a3siieLTv\u00e9gi\u00a3c\u00a7g3ti0ns which<\/p>\n
would attract. the V.\u00a7i’cvi$:i0ns– _   Vicaricus<\/p>\n
liability?’     <\/p>\n
In  mg}:  and others (2003) :42 camp Cats<\/p>\n
2:28 (SC_3_the Siiprejne C’ouft=h\u00e9I<i ihai in tha abs\u00e9nca ef any ;)1'c2visi0n {aid<\/p>\n
' V' '–.d.0w1\u00e9.[,1i\u00a71d\u00a2\u00a3.AtheM. stami\u00e9; 'a'*\u00e9i2'\u00e9ctor or a wmpany or an empioyee came: he<\/p>\n
 held  b\u00e9'-v1\u00a7ic\u00e9fie\u00a7isi}' iiable for an c\ufb01ence mmmitte\u00e9 by the eampany<\/p>\n
\u00e9ts\u00e9i\u20ac '  ._
\n 1I.=f1i'1.1 th\u00e9 ingtant sassy naihing is piaced an racer\u00e9 ta Shaw that<\/p>\n
 fssiitigner  2. \u00a30 8 who are workizxg in ziiffereni capaaities in the fast<\/p>\n
"  'peiifiea\u00e9r company are s\u00e9cariousiy liable fer the eifanaes cammiited by<\/p>\n
 * first patitioner company. Except stating ihai petitioner N03. 3 is 3 are<\/p>\n
mspensibie: for the d3}'\u00bbt.:2-day a\ufb01}5i1"s of the \ufb01rgt petitie\ufb01er cempam: there<\/p>\n
63\/"<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S Toll Inida Logistics Pvt Ltd vs The Station House Officer on 15 October, 2008 Author: H N Das I-T3.’ ‘ –. \u00ab Si}. {V’i<L-iyanath IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BANGALORE DATED THIS 'THE 15?" DAY OF OCTOBER 2008 BEFORE THE HOEVBLE MR. JUSTICE. H5; N'%GA;?vIOH;%'\u00a3$%_jf1!AS:.:: . CRHHNAL PETI'ITI{}N '1A393;2\u00a7Aejs 4' […]<\/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-149208","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Toll Inida Logistics Pvt Ltd vs The Station House Officer on 15 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-toll-inida-logistics-pvt-ltd-vs-the-station-house-officer-on-15-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Toll Inida Logistics Pvt Ltd vs The Station House Officer on 15 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-toll-inida-logistics-pvt-ltd-vs-the-station-house-officer-on-15-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-31T09:05:28+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\\\/ms-toll-inida-logistics-pvt-ltd-vs-the-station-house-officer-on-15-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-toll-inida-logistics-pvt-ltd-vs-the-station-house-officer-on-15-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Toll Inida Logistics Pvt Ltd vs The Station House Officer on 15 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-31T09:05:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-toll-inida-logistics-pvt-ltd-vs-the-station-house-officer-on-15-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1647,\"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\\\/ms-toll-inida-logistics-pvt-ltd-vs-the-station-house-officer-on-15-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-toll-inida-logistics-pvt-ltd-vs-the-station-house-officer-on-15-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-toll-inida-logistics-pvt-ltd-vs-the-station-house-officer-on-15-october-2008\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Toll Inida Logistics Pvt Ltd vs The Station House Officer on 15 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-31T09:05:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-toll-inida-logistics-pvt-ltd-vs-the-station-house-officer-on-15-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-toll-inida-logistics-pvt-ltd-vs-the-station-house-officer-on-15-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-toll-inida-logistics-pvt-ltd-vs-the-station-house-officer-on-15-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Toll Inida Logistics Pvt Ltd vs The Station House Officer on 15 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S Toll Inida Logistics Pvt Ltd vs The Station House Officer on 15 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-toll-inida-logistics-pvt-ltd-vs-the-station-house-officer-on-15-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Toll Inida Logistics Pvt Ltd vs The Station House Officer on 15 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-toll-inida-logistics-pvt-ltd-vs-the-station-house-officer-on-15-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-31T09:05:28+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\/ms-toll-inida-logistics-pvt-ltd-vs-the-station-house-officer-on-15-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-toll-inida-logistics-pvt-ltd-vs-the-station-house-officer-on-15-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Toll Inida Logistics Pvt Ltd vs The Station House Officer on 15 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-31T09:05:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-toll-inida-logistics-pvt-ltd-vs-the-station-house-officer-on-15-october-2008"},"wordCount":1647,"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\/ms-toll-inida-logistics-pvt-ltd-vs-the-station-house-officer-on-15-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-toll-inida-logistics-pvt-ltd-vs-the-station-house-officer-on-15-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-toll-inida-logistics-pvt-ltd-vs-the-station-house-officer-on-15-october-2008","name":"M\/S Toll Inida Logistics Pvt Ltd vs The Station House Officer on 15 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-31T09:05:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-toll-inida-logistics-pvt-ltd-vs-the-station-house-officer-on-15-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-toll-inida-logistics-pvt-ltd-vs-the-station-house-officer-on-15-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-toll-inida-logistics-pvt-ltd-vs-the-station-house-officer-on-15-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Toll Inida Logistics Pvt Ltd vs The Station House Officer on 15 October, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149208","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=149208"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149208\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149208"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149208"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149208"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}