{"id":149390,"date":"2008-02-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthi-devi-vs-s-i-of-police-on-12-february-2008"},"modified":"2018-09-30T05:44:35","modified_gmt":"2018-09-30T00:14:35","slug":"vasanthi-devi-vs-s-i-of-police-on-12-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthi-devi-vs-s-i-of-police-on-12-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Vasanthi Devi vs S.I. Of Police on 12 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Vasanthi Devi vs S.I. Of Police on 12 February, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 38159 of 2007(P)\n\n\n1. VASANTHI DEVI, AGED 51,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. S.I. OF POLICE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED\n\n3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\n\n Dated :12\/02\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                              R.BASANT, J\n\n                       ------------------------------------\n\n                     W.P(C).No.38159 of 2007\n\n                      -------------------------------------\n\n             Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008\n\n\n\n                                   ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
     When   the   investigation   has   commenced   and   the<\/p>\n
accused,   the   defacto   complainant\/the   victim   or   any   other<\/p>\n
has a grievance that the investigation is not done properly,<\/p>\n
what is the remedy with such persons has in law ?   Can he<\/p>\n
come to this Court with a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C<\/p>\n
or Article 226\/227 of the Constitution ?   Can or should this<\/p>\n
Court entertain and consider such a petition ?   Before such<\/p>\n
person  exhausts  his  alternative remedy of approaching  the<\/p>\n
Magistrate   under   Section   156   (3)   Cr.P.C   should   such   a<\/p>\n
person   ordinarily   be   permitted   entry   into   this   Court   ?<\/p>\n
Unless exceptional and peculiar reasons are shown to exist,<\/p>\n
will  this  Court  be justified  in  entertaining  such  a petition  ?<\/p>\n
These are the  questions  that arise  for  consideration  in  this<\/p>\n
Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     2.    The   factual   matrix   is   simple.     Crime   No.2001   of<\/p>\n
2007   of   Kattakkada   Police   Station   has   been   registered<\/p>\n
W.P(C).No.38159 of 2007              2<\/span><\/p>\n
alleging  offences  punishable,  inter  alia,  under  Sections  468<\/p>\n
and   420   r\/w   34   I.P.C.     The   petitioner,   a   woman,   aged   51<\/p>\n
years   is   the   defacto   complainant   in   that   crime.     Her   short<\/p>\n
grievance is that no proper investigation has been conducted<\/p>\n
by   the  Investigating   Officer  so   far.     She   has   come   to   this<\/p>\n
Court   without   and   before   approaching   the                 learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate  with   request   to   issue   appropriate   directions<\/p>\n
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      3.    When this case came up for hearing, this Court felt<\/p>\n
that in the light of the decision in  Sakiri Vasu v. State of<\/p>\n
U.P<\/a>  [2008   AIR   SCW   309],   the   above   questions   deserve<\/p>\n
detailed   consideration.    Many   similar   matters,   in   which   the<\/p>\n
same question arises, have been heard and the counsel were<\/p>\n
requested   to   advance   arguments   on   this   specific   aspect.<\/p>\n
Arguments   have   been   heard.     Sri.C.P.Udayabhanu,   the<\/p>\n
learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner  has   advanced   his<\/p>\n
arguments.     At   the   request   of   this   Court,   Advocate<\/p>\n
S.Sreekumar,  the Standing  Counsel  for C.B.I  has advanced<\/p>\n
W.P(C).No.38159 of 2007              3<\/span><\/p>\n
arguments as Amicus Curiae.  The learned Public Prosecutor<\/p>\n
has also been heard.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      4.    The      learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
Sri.C.P.Udayabhanu submits that the power of this Court to<\/p>\n
entertain   an   application   under   Section   482   Cr.P.C   and\/or<\/p>\n
Article   226\/227   of   the   Constitution   are   not   taken   away   by<\/p>\n
the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P<\/a> [2008 AIR SCW<\/p>\n
309].     In   an   appropriate   case,   such   jurisdiction   still   vests<\/p>\n
with   the   Court.     It   is,  in   these   circumstances,   contended<\/p>\n
that in any view of the matter, the jurisdiction of this Court<\/p>\n
to   entertain   this   petition   under   Article   226   of   the<\/p>\n
Constitution cannot be held to be taken away by the decision<\/p>\n
in  Sakiri Vasu.     The counsel submits that this is a proper<\/p>\n
case where such jurisdiction can and ought to be invoked.<\/p>\n
      5.    The  learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner  then<\/p>\n
contends that the nature of reliefs that can be sought from a<\/p>\n
Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is rather limited and<\/p>\n
cannot, at any rate, remedy the grievance of the petitioner.<\/p>\n
W.P(C).No.38159 of 2007                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
      6.    The   decision   in    Sakiri   Vasu  appears   to   have<\/p>\n
considered   all   these   aspects.     I   shall   first   consider   the<\/p>\n
relevant observations in  Sakiri Vasu which clearly lays down<\/p>\n
that   the   Magistrate   has   competence   to   monitor   and<\/p>\n
supervise the investigation in an on going manner when the<\/p>\n
investigation is pending.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      7.    In para.11 of the  Sakiri Vasu, the learned Judges<\/p>\n
have stated so:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      “……………………………………………………………..<\/p>\n
      if   even   after   registering   it   (FIR)   no   proper<\/p>\n
      investigation   is   held,   it   is   open   to   the<\/p>\n
      aggrieved   person   to   file   an   application<\/p>\n
      under   Section   156(3)   Cr.P.C   before   the<\/p>\n
      learned   Magistrate  concerned.     If   such   an<\/p>\n
      application   under   Section   156(3)   is   filed<\/p>\n
      before   the   Magistrate,   the   Magistrate   can<\/p>\n
      direct the FIR to be registered and also can<\/p>\n
      direct a proper investigation to be made, in<\/p>\n
      a   case   where,   according   to   the   aggrieved<\/p>\n
      person,  no  proper   investigation  was   made.<\/p>\n
      The Magistrate, can also under the same<\/p>\n
W.P(C).No.38159 of 2007                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
    provision   monitor   the   investigation   to<\/p>\n
    ensure a proper investigation.”<\/p>\n
                            (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    8.          Later in para.13, the learned Judges  proceeded to<\/p>\n
observe as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
     ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       We
\n                  would   further   clarify   that   even   if   the<\/p>\n
     police   has   made   the   investigation,   or   is<\/p>\n
     actually   making   the   investigation,   which   the<\/p>\n
     aggrieved   person   feels   is   not   proper,   such   a<\/p>\n
     person   can   approach   the   Magistrate   under<\/p>\n
     Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, and if the Magistrate is<\/p>\n
     satisfied   he   can   order   a   proper   investigation<\/p>\n
     and   take   other   suitable   steps   and   pass   such<\/p>\n
     order   as   he   thinks   necessary   for   ensuring   a<\/p>\n
     proper   investigation.     All   these   powers   a<\/p>\n
     Magistrate   enjoys   under   Section   156(3)<\/p>\n
     Cr.P.C.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                            (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    9.          Later,   in   para.15,   the   learned   Judges   have<\/p>\n
observed thus:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                “Section   156(3)   provides   for   a   check   by<\/p>\n
    the   Magistrate   on   the   police   performing   its<\/p>\n
W.P(C).No.38159 of 2007              6<\/span><\/p>\n
    duties   under   Chapter   XII   Cr.P.C.     In   cases<\/p>\n
    where the Magistrate finds that the police  has<\/p>\n
    not   done   its   duty   of   investigating   the   case   at<\/p>\n
    all,   or   has   not   done   it   satisfactorily,   he   can<\/p>\n
    issue   a   direction   to   the   police   to   do   the<\/p>\n
    investigation   properly,   and   can   monitor   the<\/p>\n
    same.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
    10.    When   it   came   to   para.17,   the   learned   Judges<\/p>\n
observed as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
    “In   our   opinion   Section   156(3)   Cr.P.C   is   wide<\/p>\n
    enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate<\/p>\n
    which   are   necessary   for   ensuring   a   proper<\/p>\n
    investigation,   and   it   includes   the   power   of<\/p>\n
    ordering   a   proper   investigation   if   the   Magistrate<\/p>\n
    is   satisfied   that   a   proper   investigation   has   not<\/p>\n
    been   done,   or   is   not   being   done   by   the   police.<\/p>\n
    Section  156(3) Cr.P.C,  though briefly worded, in<\/p>\n
    our   opinion,   is   very   wide   and   it   will   include   all<\/p>\n
    such   incidental   powers   as   are   necessary   for<\/p>\n
    ensuring a proper investigation.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
    11.    Later,   after   adverting   to   the   principle   that   an<\/p>\n
express grant of statutory power carries with it by necessary<\/p>\n
W.P(C).No.38159 of 2007              7<\/span><\/p>\n
implication   the   authority   to   use   all   reasonable   means   to<\/p>\n
make such grant effective, the learned Judges construed the<\/p>\n
power   under   Section   156(3)   Cr.P.C   to   include   an   implied<\/p>\n
power   to   direct   a   proper   investigation.     In   para.24   the<\/p>\n
principle is stated with  precision in the following words<\/p>\n
           “In   view   of   the   above   mentioned   legal<\/p>\n
     position,   we   are   of   the   view   that   although<\/p>\n
     Section 156(3) is very briefly worded,  there<\/p>\n
     is an implied power in the magistrate under<\/p>\n
     Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to order registration of<\/p>\n
     a   criminal   offence   and\/or  to   direct   the<\/p>\n
     officer-in-charge   of   the   concerned   police<\/p>\n
     station   to   hold   a   proper   investigation   and<\/p>\n
     take   all   such   necessary   steps   that   may   be<\/p>\n
     necessary for ensuring a proper investigation<\/p>\n
     including monitoring the same.  Even though<\/p>\n
     these   powers   have   not   been   expressly<\/p>\n
     mentioned  in Section  156(3) Cr.P.C,  we  are<\/p>\n
     of   the   opinion   that   they   are   implied   in   the<\/p>\n
     above provision.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                            (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
W.P(C).No.38159 of 2007               8<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      12.    The   learned   Judges   elaborated   on   the   above<\/p>\n
matter with a specific purpose.  Their Lordships were aware<\/p>\n
of   the   practice   of   persons   rushing   to   the   High   Court   with<\/p>\n
Writ   Petitions   or   petitions   under   Section   482   Cr.P.C.     The<\/p>\n
learned Judges want to make it clear that ordinarily such a<\/p>\n
practice should not be encouraged and the High Courts must<\/p>\n
refuse   to   interfere   with   such   matters.     In   para.25   the<\/p>\n
following lines appear.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
     “We   have   elaborated   on   the   above   matter<\/p>\n
     because we often find that when someone has a<\/p>\n
     grievance that his FIR has not been registered at<\/p>\n
     the police station and\/or a proper investigation is<\/p>\n
     not   being   done   by   the   police,   he   rushes   to   the<\/p>\n
     High   Court   to   file   a   writ   petition   or   a   petition<\/p>\n
     under Section 482 Cr.P.C.  We are of the opinion<\/p>\n
     that   the   High   Court   should   not   encourage   this<\/p>\n
     practice  and should  ordinarily  refuse to interfere<\/p>\n
     in such mattes, and relegate the petitioner to his<\/p>\n
     alternative remedy.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
      13.    To dispel, any impression that the Magistrate does<\/p>\n
not   have   powers   to   ensure   a   proper   investigation,   their<\/p>\n
W.P(C).No.38159 of 2007              9<\/span><\/p>\n
Lordships proceeded further and stated so in para.27 in the<\/p>\n
following words.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
          “As   we   have   already   observed   above,<\/p>\n
    the   Magistrate   has   very   wide   powers   to<\/p>\n
    direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a<\/p>\n
    proper investigation, and for his purpose he<\/p>\n
    can monitor the investigation to ensure that<\/p>\n
    the investigation is done properly (though he<\/p>\n
    cannot investigate himself).  The High Court<\/p>\n
    should discourage the practice of filing a writ<\/p>\n
    petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C<\/p>\n
    simply   because   a   person   has   a   grievance<\/p>\n
    that  his  FIR has  not been  registered  by the<\/p>\n
    police,   or   after   being   registered,   proper<\/p>\n
    investigation   has   not   been   done   by   the<\/p>\n
    police.     For   this   girevance,   the   remedy   lies<\/p>\n
    under   Sections   36   and   154(3)   before   the<\/p>\n
    concerned police officers, and if that is of no<\/p>\n
    avail,   under   Section   156(3)   Cr.P.C   before<\/p>\n
    the   Magistrate   or   by   filing   a   criminal<\/p>\n
    complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C, and not<\/p>\n
    by   filing   a   writ   petition   or   a   petition   under<\/p>\n
    Section 482 Cr.P.C.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
W.P(C).No.38159 of 2007             10<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      14.    After   observing   that   such   an   alternate   remedy<\/p>\n
available to such a petitioner, the learned Judges in para.28<\/p>\n
stated thus:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “It is  true that alternative remedy is not an<\/p>\n
     absolute   bar   to   a   writ   petition,   but   it   is<\/p>\n
     equally   well   settled   that   if   there   is   an<\/p>\n
     alternative   remedy   the   High   Court   should<\/p>\n
     not ordinarily interfere.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
      15.    The  learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner  expresses<\/p>\n
doubt as to whether this conclusion that the Magistrate has<\/p>\n
powers   under   Section   156(3)   Cr.P.C   is   correct.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Sri.S.Sreekumar,   Standing   Counsel   for   C.B.I,   particularly<\/p>\n
relies on the decision of the 3 Judge Bench of the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court   in   1980   S.C   326  State   of   Bihar   v.   J.A.C.Saldanna<\/p>\n
[AIR   1980   S.C   326.].     The   counsel   relies   on   the   following<\/p>\n
observations in para.25 and 26 of the said decision.<\/p>\n
      “para.25:There   is   a   clear-cut   and   well<\/p>\n
      demarcated sphere of activity in the field of<\/p>\n
      crime   detection   and   crime   punishment.<\/p>\n
      Investigation   of   an   offence   is   the   field<\/p>\n
      exclusively   reserved   for   the   executive<\/p>\n
W.P(C).No.38159 of 2007            11<\/span><\/p>\n
    through   the   police   department,   the<\/p>\n
    superintendence   over   which   vests   in   the<\/p>\n
    State  Government.    The   executive   which   is<\/p>\n
    charged   with   a   duty   to   keep   vigilance   over<\/p>\n
    law and order situation is obliged to prevent<\/p>\n
    crime   and   if   an   offence   is   alleged   to   have<\/p>\n
    been   committed   it   is   its   bounden   duty   to<\/p>\n
    investigate   into   the   offence   and   bring   the<\/p>\n
    offender   to   book.    Once  it   investigates  and<\/p>\n
    finds an offence having been committed it is<\/p>\n
    its  duty   to   collect  evidence   for  the  purpose<\/p>\n
    of   proving   the   offence.     Once   that   is<\/p>\n
    completed   and   the   investigating   officer<\/p>\n
    submits   report   to   the   Court   requesting   the<\/p>\n
    Court   to   take   cognisance   of   the   offence<\/p>\n
    under   Section   190   of   the   Code   its   duty<\/p>\n
    comes   to   an   end.     On   a   cognizance   of   the<\/p>\n
    offence being taken by the Court the police<\/p>\n
    function   of   investigation   comes   to   an   end<\/p>\n
    subject to the provision contained in Section<\/p>\n
    173(8),   there   commences   the   adjudicatory<\/p>\n
    function   of   the   judiciary   to   determine<\/p>\n
    whether an offence has been committed and<\/p>\n
    if   so,   whether   by   the   person   or   persons<\/p>\n
W.P(C).No.38159 of 2007              12<\/span><\/p>\n
    charged   with   the   crime   by   the   police   in   its<\/p>\n
    report to the Court, and to award adequate<\/p>\n
    punishment according to law for the offence<\/p>\n
    proved   to   the   satisfacytion   of   the   Court.<\/p>\n
    There   is   thus   a   well   defined   and   well<\/p>\n
    demarcated   function   in   the   field   of   crime<\/p>\n
    detection   and   its   subsequent   adjudication<\/p>\n
    between the police and the Magistrate.  This<\/p>\n
    has   been   recognised   way   back   in   King<\/p>\n
    Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, (1944) 71<\/p>\n
    Ind   App   203   at   p.213,   where   the   Privy<\/p>\n
    Council observed as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “In   India,   as   has   been   shown,   there   is   a<\/p>\n
     statutory   right   on   the   part   of   the   police   to<\/p>\n
     investigate the  circumstances  of an alleged<\/p>\n
     cognizable   crime   without   requiring   any<\/p>\n
     authority from the judicial authorities and it<\/p>\n
     would,   as   their   Lordships   think,   be   an<\/p>\n
     unfortunate   result   if   it   should   be   held<\/p>\n
     possible   to   interfere   with   those   statutory<\/p>\n
     rights   by   an   exercise   of   the   inherent<\/p>\n
     jurisdiction   of   the   Court.     The   functions   of<\/p>\n
     the   judiciary   and   the   police   are<\/p>\n
     complementary,   not   overlapping,   and   the<\/p>\n
W.P(C).No.38159 of 2007             13<\/span><\/p>\n
     combination of individual  liberty with a due<\/p>\n
     observance   of   law   and   order   is   only   to   be<\/p>\n
     obtained by leaving each to exercise its own<\/p>\n
     function,   always,   of   course,   subject   to   the<\/p>\n
     right   of   the   Court   to   intervene   in   an<\/p>\n
     appropriate   case   when   moved   under<\/p>\n
     Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code<\/p>\n
     to   give   directions   in   the   nature   of   habeas<\/p>\n
     corpus.     In   such   a   case   as   the   present,<\/p>\n
     however, the court’s functions begin when a<\/p>\n
     charge   is   preferred   before   it,   and   not   until<\/p>\n
     then”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    26.    This   view   of   the   Judicial   Committee<\/p>\n
    clearly   demarcates   the   functions   of   the<\/p>\n
    executive   and   the   judiciary   in   the   field   of<\/p>\n
    detection   of   crime   and   its   subsequent   trial<\/p>\n
    and  it   would   appear   that   the   power   of   the<\/p>\n
    police to investigate into a cognizable offence<\/p>\n
    is ordinarily  not to be interfered with by the<\/p>\n
    judiciary.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nW.P(C).No.38159 of 2007    14<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                 (R.BASANT, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
rtr\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Vasanthi Devi vs S.I. Of Police on 12 February, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 38159 of 2007(P) 1. VASANTHI DEVI, AGED 51, … Petitioner Vs 1. S.I. OF POLICE, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-149390","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVasanthi Devi vs S.I. Of Police on 12 February, 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\/vasanthi-devi-vs-s-i-of-police-on-12-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vasanthi Devi vs S.I. Of Police on 12 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthi-devi-vs-s-i-of-police-on-12-february-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=\"2008-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-30T00:14:35+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasanthi-devi-vs-s-i-of-police-on-12-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasanthi-devi-vs-s-i-of-police-on-12-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vasanthi Devi vs S.I. Of Police on 12 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-30T00:14:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasanthi-devi-vs-s-i-of-police-on-12-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2109,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasanthi-devi-vs-s-i-of-police-on-12-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasanthi-devi-vs-s-i-of-police-on-12-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasanthi-devi-vs-s-i-of-police-on-12-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Vasanthi Devi vs S.I. Of Police on 12 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-30T00:14:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasanthi-devi-vs-s-i-of-police-on-12-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasanthi-devi-vs-s-i-of-police-on-12-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasanthi-devi-vs-s-i-of-police-on-12-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vasanthi Devi vs S.I. Of Police on 12 February, 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":"Vasanthi Devi vs S.I. Of Police on 12 February, 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\/vasanthi-devi-vs-s-i-of-police-on-12-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vasanthi Devi vs S.I. Of Police on 12 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthi-devi-vs-s-i-of-police-on-12-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-30T00:14:35+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthi-devi-vs-s-i-of-police-on-12-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthi-devi-vs-s-i-of-police-on-12-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vasanthi Devi vs S.I. Of Police on 12 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-30T00:14:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthi-devi-vs-s-i-of-police-on-12-february-2008"},"wordCount":2109,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthi-devi-vs-s-i-of-police-on-12-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthi-devi-vs-s-i-of-police-on-12-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthi-devi-vs-s-i-of-police-on-12-february-2008","name":"Vasanthi Devi vs S.I. Of Police on 12 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-30T00:14:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthi-devi-vs-s-i-of-police-on-12-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthi-devi-vs-s-i-of-police-on-12-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthi-devi-vs-s-i-of-police-on-12-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vasanthi Devi vs S.I. Of Police on 12 February, 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\/149390","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=149390"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149390\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149390"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149390"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149390"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}