{"id":151300,"date":"2007-02-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vel-raj-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-3-february-2007"},"modified":"2016-12-14T11:26:07","modified_gmt":"2016-12-14T05:56:07","slug":"vel-raj-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-3-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vel-raj-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-3-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"Vel Raj vs The State Represented By on 3 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Vel Raj vs The State Represented By on 3 February, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 03\/02\/2007\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nCrl.O.P.(MD).No.8997 of 2006\n\n\nVel Raj\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1. The State represented by\n   The Inspector of Police,\n   Kurangani Police Station,\n\n2.The Superintendent of Police,\nTheni District.\t\t\t ... Respondents\n\n\nPrayer\n\n\nPetition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to\ndirect the second respondent herein to transfer the investigation in Cr.NO.38 of\n2006 pending on the file of the first respondent to any other specialized police\nagency viz., CB CID of the District Crime Branch and to take appropriate legal\naction under the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n  \t\t\n!For Petitioner   ... Mr.Veera.Kathiravan\n\n^For Respondents  ... Mr.M.Ravishankar\n\t\t      Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis petition is filed to direct the second respondent herein to transfer<br \/>\nthe investigation in Cr.NO.38 of 2006 pending on the file of the first<br \/>\nrespondent to any other specialized police agency viz., CB CID of the District<br \/>\nCrime Branch and to take appropriate legal action under the Code of Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that there is a case and<br \/>\ncounter case.  At the instance of the petitioner, the case registered by the<br \/>\npolice was referred to as &#8216;Mistake of Fact&#8217; on one and the same day of lodging<br \/>\nof the complaint which smacks the prejudice and bias of the police.  However,<br \/>\nthe police took steps and proceeded with the complaint lodged by the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s opponent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would highlight that by<br \/>\nthis time, the police sent intimation to the learned Magistrate relating to the<br \/>\ncomplaint by the petitioner that the said complaint was borne out of &#8216;Mistake of<br \/>\nFact&#8217;.  However, the police laid the police report relating to other complaint.\\<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would strenuously argue that<br \/>\nunder Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, this Court can exercise<br \/>\nits power and give direction to the police and preferably to some other police<br \/>\nofficer to further investigate into the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. At this juncture, I would like to recollect and refer the decision of<br \/>\nthe Honourable Apex Court in Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab reported in<br \/>\n(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1.  Certain excerpts from it, would run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;67. It has to be noted that in Section 154(1) of the Code, the<br \/>\nlegislature in its collective wisdom has carefully and cautiously used the<br \/>\nexpression &#8220;information&#8221; without qualifying the same as in Sections 41(1)(a) or\n<\/p>\n<p>(g) of the Code wherein the expressions &#8220;reasonable complaint&#8221; and &#8220;credible<br \/>\ninformation&#8221; are used.  Evidently, the non-qualification of the word<br \/>\n&#8220;information&#8221; in Section 154(1) unlike in Sections 41(1)(a) and (g) of the Code<br \/>\nmay be for the reason that the police officer should not refuse to record an<br \/>\ninformation relating to the commission of a cognizable offence and to register a<br \/>\ncase thereon on the ground that he is not satisfied with the reasonableness or<br \/>\ncredibility of the information.  In other words, &#8220;reasonableness&#8221; or<br \/>\n&#8220;credibility&#8221; of the said information is not a condition precedent for<br \/>\nregistration of a case.  A comparison of the present Section 154 with those of<br \/>\nthe earlier Codes will indicate that the legislature had purposely thought it<br \/>\nfit to employ only the word &#8220;information&#8221; without qualifying the said word.<br \/>\nSection 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1861 (Act 25 of 1861) passed by<br \/>\nthe Legislative Council of India read that &#8220;every complaint or information&#8221;<br \/>\npreferred to an officer in charge of a police station should be reduced into<br \/>\nwriting which provision was subsequently modified by Section 112 of the Code of<br \/>\n1872 (Act 10 of 1872) which thereafter read that &#8220;every complaint&#8221; preferred to<br \/>\nan officer in charge of a police station shall be reduced in writing.  The word<br \/>\n&#8220;complaint&#8221; which occurred in previous two Codes of 1861 and 1872 was deleted<br \/>\nand in that place the word &#8220;information&#8221; was used in the Codes of 1882 and 1898<br \/>\nwhich word is now used in Sections 154, 155, 157 and 190(c) of the Code.  An<br \/>\noverall reading of all the Codes makes it clear that the condition which is sine<br \/>\nquo non for recording a first information report is that there must be an<br \/>\ninformation and that information must disclose a cognizable offence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t68. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that if any information disclosing<br \/>\na cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station<br \/>\nsatisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said police<br \/>\nofficer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the<br \/>\nprescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such<br \/>\ninformation.  &#8230;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 70. The next key question that arises for consideration is whether the<br \/>\nregistration of a criminal case under Section 154(1) of the Code ipso facto<br \/>\nwarrants the setting in motion of an investigation under Chapter XII of the<br \/>\nCode.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t71. Section 157(1) requires an officer in charge of a police station who<br \/>\n&#8220;from information received or otherwise&#8221; has reason to suspect the commission of<br \/>\nan offence&#8211;that is a cognizable offence-which he is empowered to investigate<br \/>\nunder Section 156, to forthwith send a report to a Magistrate empowered to take<br \/>\ncognizance of such offence upon a police report and to either proceed in person<br \/>\nor depute anyone of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the<br \/>\nState Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to<br \/>\nproceed to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and<br \/>\nif necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender.<br \/>\nThis provision is qualified by a proviso which is in two parts &#8211; (a) and (b).<br \/>\nAs per clause (a) the officer in charge of a police station need not proceed in<br \/>\nperson or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot if<br \/>\nthe information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any<br \/>\nperson by name and the case is not of a serious nature.  According to clause\n<\/p>\n<p>(b), if it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is no<br \/>\nsufficient ground for entering on an investigation he shall not investigate the<br \/>\ncase.  Sub-section (2) of Section 157 demands that in each of the cases<br \/>\nmentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section<br \/>\n157, the officer in charge of the police station must state in his report,<br \/>\nrequired to be forwarded to the Magistrate his reasons for not fully complying<br \/>\nwith the requirements of sub-section (1) and when the police officer decides not<br \/>\nto investigate the case for the reasons mentioned in clause (b) of the proviso,<br \/>\nhe in addition to his report to the Magistrate, must forthwith notify to the<br \/>\ninformant, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by State Government, the<br \/>\nfact that he will not investigate the case or cause the case to be investigated.<br \/>\nSection 156(1) which is to be read in conjunction with Section 157(1) states<br \/>\nthat any officer in charge of a police station may without an order of a<br \/>\nMagistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction<br \/>\nover the local area within the limits of the police station concerned would have<br \/>\npower to enquire into or try under provisions of Chapter XIII.  Section 156(3)<br \/>\nvests a discretionary power on a Magistrate empowered under Section 190 to order<br \/>\nan investigation by a police officer as contemplated in Section 156(1).  It is<br \/>\npertinent to note that this provision does not empower a Magistrate to stop an<br \/>\ninvestigation undertaken by the police.  (See State of Bihar v J.A.C.Saldanha).<br \/>\nIn that case, power of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) to direct further<br \/>\ninvestigation after submission of a report by the investigating officer under<br \/>\nSection 173(2) of the Code was dealt with.  It was observed as<br \/>\nfollows:(J.A.C.Saldanha case [(1980) 1 SCC 554:1980 SCC (Cri) 272], SCC p.568,<br \/>\npara 19).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;19. The power of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) to direct further<br \/>\ninvestigation is clearly an independent power and does not stand in conflict<br \/>\nwith the power of the State Government as spelt out hereinbefore.  The power<br \/>\nconferred upon the Magistrate under Section 156(3) can be exercised by the<br \/>\nMagistrate even after submission of a report by the investigating officer which<br \/>\nwould mean that it would be open to the Magistrate not to accept the conclusion<br \/>\nof the investigating officer and direct further investigation.  This provision<br \/>\ndoes not in any way affect the power of the investigating officer to further<br \/>\ninvestigate the case even after submission of the report as provided in Section<br \/>\n173(3).&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The above position has been highlighted in <a href=\"\/doc\/1033637\/\">State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal<\/a>[1992<br \/>\nSupp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426]. [emphasis supplied.]<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The Honourable Apex Court set at rest all controversies in clear terms<br \/>\nand posited that under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate could order<br \/>\nfurther investigation as such the dictum of the Honourable Apex Court, solves<br \/>\nthe problem of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the<br \/>\npolice in fact has not so far submitted the report as &#8216;Mistake of Fact&#8217;, even<br \/>\nthough mere such notice was served on him.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Be that as it may, this Court could remedy such problem, by the<br \/>\nfollowing direction:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIf not already the report relating to &#8216;Mistake of Fact&#8217; has been submitted<br \/>\nby the police to the Magistrate concerned, the same shall be submitted within a<br \/>\nperiod of fifteen days from this date;  thereupon, the Magistrate concerned<br \/>\nshall put the petition on notice about it.  If on the other hand, the report is<br \/>\nalready available with the Magistrate, the Magistrate shall fix the date by<br \/>\nissuing notice to the petitioner;  thereupon, the petitioner shall file his<br \/>\nprotest petition within fifteen days.  The Magistrate shall exercise his powers<br \/>\nadhering strictly to the mandates contemplated under the aforesaid decision of<br \/>\nthe Honourable Apex Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. With the above observation, this petition is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>rsb<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Inspector of Police,<br \/>\n  Kurangani Police Station,<\/p>\n<p>2.The Superintendent of Police,<br \/>\n    Theni District.\n<\/p>\n<p>  3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\n  Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court,<br \/>\n  Madurai.\t\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Vel Raj vs The State Represented By on 3 February, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03\/02\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8997 of 2006 Vel Raj &#8230; Petitioner Vs. 1. The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Kurangani Police Station, 2.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-151300","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Vel Raj vs The State Represented By on 3 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vel-raj-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-3-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vel Raj vs The State Represented By on 3 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vel-raj-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-3-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-14T05:56:07+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vel-raj-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-3-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vel-raj-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-3-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vel Raj vs The State Represented By on 3 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-14T05:56:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vel-raj-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-3-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1547,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vel-raj-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-3-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vel-raj-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-3-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vel-raj-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-3-february-2007\",\"name\":\"Vel Raj vs The State Represented By on 3 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-14T05:56:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vel-raj-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-3-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vel-raj-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-3-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vel-raj-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-3-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vel Raj vs The State Represented By on 3 February, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Vel Raj vs The State Represented By on 3 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vel-raj-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-3-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vel Raj vs The State Represented By on 3 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vel-raj-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-3-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-14T05:56:07+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vel-raj-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-3-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vel-raj-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-3-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vel Raj vs The State Represented By on 3 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-14T05:56:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vel-raj-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-3-february-2007"},"wordCount":1547,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vel-raj-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-3-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vel-raj-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-3-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vel-raj-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-3-february-2007","name":"Vel Raj vs The State Represented By on 3 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-14T05:56:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vel-raj-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-3-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vel-raj-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-3-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vel-raj-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-3-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vel Raj vs The State Represented By on 3 February, 2007"}]},{"@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\/151300","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=151300"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151300\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151300"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151300"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151300"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}