{"id":152336,"date":"2008-02-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-kumar-richhariya-vs-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-19-february-2008"},"modified":"2015-10-13T04:34:06","modified_gmt":"2015-10-12T23:04:06","slug":"sandeep-kumar-richhariya-vs-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-19-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-kumar-richhariya-vs-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-19-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Sandeep Kumar Richhariya vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 19 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Sandeep Kumar Richhariya vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 19 February, 2008<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2008 (2) MPHT 400<\/div>\n
Author: A Patnaik<\/div>\n
Bench: A Patnaik, P Shrivastava<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
A.K. Patnaik, C.J.<\/p>\n
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 7.10.2007 passed  by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 2370\/2007, filed under the  Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal),  Adhiniyam, 2005.\n<\/p>\n
2. The facts briefly are that by an advertisement published in  June 2005 in the news paper “Rozgar and Nirman”, applications  were invited for 883 posts of Constable (General Duty) and out of  883 posts, 97 posts were to be filled in the 10th Battalion, SAF,  Sagar. In response to the advertisement, the appellant applied and  he went through successfully a physical test and thereafter he  appeared in the written examination in July 2005 and was selected  along with other candidates for interview. After the interview, the  select list of 97 candidates was prepared and in the select list, the  name of the appellant found place amongt the successful  candidates at serial No. 13 of the list pertaining to General  Category. The list was sent to the respondent No. 3 Inspector  General of Police, Special Armed Force, Jabalpur Range, for  approval but the respondent No. 3 rejected the same by order dated  23.8.2005 on the ground Writ Appeal No1880 of 2007  that in the answer-sheets of some of the candidates, there was  some over-writing and interpolation. The order dated 23.8.2005  passed by the Inspector General of Police was challenged before  the High Court of M.P. in W.P. No. 9308\/2005; W.P.  No. 9582\/2005; W.P. No. 10573\/2005 and W.P. No. 12492\/2005 by  some of the successful candidates and by a common order dated  25.9.2006, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and  quashed the order dated 23.8.2005 passed by the Inspector  General of Police after holding that the authorities should have  only cancelled the result of those candidates whose answer-sheets  contained overwriting or interpolation and should not have  cancelled the result of other candidates.\n<\/p>\n
3. Aggrieved, the respondents filed W.A. No. 1286\/2006, W.A.  No. 1287\/2006 and W.A. No. 1425\/2006 against the common order  dated 25.9.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in the four  writ petitions and a Division Bench of this Court while upholding  the common order dated 25.9.2006 of the learned Single Judge  directed that the relief granted by the learned Single Judge by a  common order should be restricted to the writ petitioners and  should not be extended to persons who had not come to the Court.  Thereafter, a fresh select list was drawn up but the name of the  appellant was not included in the select list because he had not  filed writ petition at the first instance along with Writ Petitions  No. 9308\/2005; 9582\/2005; 10573\/2005 and 12492\/2005. The  appellant then filed Writ Petition No. 2370\/2007(s) contending that  his name should have been included in the select list prepared  afresh pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in  the earlier batch of writ petitions as modified by the order passed  by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeals. By the impugned order  dated 17.10.2007 the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ  Petition No. 2370\/2007(s) after holding that the Division Bench in  the writ appeals has directed that the relief should be restricted  only to the writ petitioners and should not be extended to those  who had not approached the Court after relying on the decision of  the Apex Court in the case of Bhoop Singh v. Union of India  and Ors.<\/a>  .\n<\/p>\n
4. Mr. Atul Awasthi, Learned Counsel appearing for the  appellant, submitted that the appellant was not party to the Writ  Appeals Nos.1286\/2006, 1287\/2006 and 1425\/2006 in which the  Division Bench passed the order dated 11.7.2007 restricting the  relief granted by the learned Single Judge in earlier batch of writ  petitions only to the writ petitioners and hence the common order  dated 11.7.2007 of the Division Bench in the Writ Appeals  Nos.1286\/2006, 1287\/2006 and 1425\/2006 is not binding on the  present appellant. He further submitted that it is well settled by  the Apex Court in the case of Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and  Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.<\/a>  that writ petition for enforcement of fundamental rights  cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. He  argued that the learned Single Judge, therefore, was not right in  dismissing the writ petition of the appellant only on the ground of  delay and laches when the appellant could have otherwise been  selected on the basis of his merit position.\n<\/p>\n
5. Mr. Rahul Jain, learned Government Advocate appearing for  the respondents, on the other hand, cited the decision of the  Supreme Court in the case of Bhoop Singh v. Union of India and Ors.<\/a> (supra) on which the learned Single Judge has relied on in  the impugned order in which it has been held that inordinate and  unexplained delay and laches is by itself a ground for refusal to  grant a relief to the petitioner irrespective of the merit of this case.\n<\/p>\n
6. We have perused the decision of the Apex Court in the case  of Bhoop Singh v. Union of India and Ors.<\/a> (supra) cited by Mr.  Jain and we find that in the said decision the Apex Court has held  that if a person entitled to a relief chooses to remain silent for long  and thereby gives rise to a reasonable belief in the mind of others  that he was not interested in claiming that relief, then others are  justified in acting on that belief and this is more so in service  matters where vacancies are required to be filled up. The Supreme  Court found in the facts Writ Appeal No1880 of 2007  of that case that Bhoop Singh who had been terminated from  service, challenged the order of termination after lapse of 22 years  without any cogent explanation for the inordinate delay and  thereafter filed a writ petition for reinstatement on the ground that  others similarly dismissed had been reinstated pursuant to their  earlier writ petitions filed by them. Hence by the time he  approached the Court after 22 years, the vacancy of Bhoop Singh  had been filled up and number of recruitments had taken place to  different vacancies thereafter and by the inordinate and  unexplained delay, a situation had been created, which could not  be reversed by his reinstatement.\n<\/p>\n
7. In the present case, on the other hand, the claim of the  appellant is that he had been in fact selected in the select list of  General Category candidates and had been placed at serial No. 13  in the select list of the General Category candidates. Pursuant to  the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeals  No. 1286\/2006, 1287\/2006 and 1425\/2006 on 11.7.2007, a fresh  select list may have been made but the appointment orders were  yet to be issued when the appellant filed the writ petition  No. 2370\/2007. It will be extremely unfair and unreasonable if the  appellant was not considered for such selection if his answer-script  did not contain any interpolation or over-writing. In our  considered opinion, the fundamental rights of the appellant under  Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to equal opportunity  in the matter of public employment would be grossly violated if the  appellant was not considered for the selection to the posts of  Constable.\n<\/p>\n
8. As has been held by the Apex Court in the case of  Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and Ors. v. The State of  Maharashtra and Ors.<\/a> (supra):\n<\/p>\n
 Moreover, it may be noticed that the claim for  enforcement of the fundamental right of equal  opportunity under Article 16 is itself a fundamental  right guaranteed under Article 32 and this Court  which has Writ Appeal No1880 of 2007  been  assigned the role of a sentinel on the qui-vive  for  protection of the fundamental rights cannot easily  allow itself to be persuaded to refuse relief solely on  the jejune ground of laches, delay or the like.\n<\/p>\n
9. Mr. Atul Awasthi, Learned Counsel for the appellant further  submitted that the learned single Judge has further observed that  the appellant has not filed a copy of the order passed in W.A.  No. 1286 of 2006 and has also not mentioned about the  modification order passed by the Court while deciding  W.A. No. 1286 of 2006 and, therefore, the appellant has suppressed  material facts in W.P. No. 2370 of 2007. He submitted that while the  Writ Petition No. 2370 of 2007 was filed on 12.2.2007, the order in  W.A. No. 1286 of 2006 was passed on 11.7.2007, hence the  question of the appellant suppressing the fact of the Division  Bench having passed the order in W.A. No. 1286 of 2006 did not  arise. We agree with Mr. Atul Awasthi, Learned Counsel for the  appellant that W.P. No. 2370 of 2007 having been filed prior to the  order passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1286 of 2006, the  appellant cannot be held guilty of suppression of material facts in  the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
10. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned order  dated 17.10.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge and allow  the writ appeal and direct the respondents to consider the case of  the appellant for selection if his answer-scripts did not contain any  interpolation or overwriting.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court Sandeep Kumar Richhariya vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 19 February, 2008 Equivalent citations: 2008 (2) MPHT 400 Author: A Patnaik Bench: A Patnaik, P Shrivastava ORDER A.K. Patnaik, C.J. 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 7.10.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 2370\/2007, […]<\/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":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-152336","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSandeep Kumar Richhariya vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 19 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\/sandeep-kumar-richhariya-vs-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-19-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sandeep Kumar Richhariya vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 19 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-kumar-richhariya-vs-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-19-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=\"2008-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-12T23:04:06+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sandeep-kumar-richhariya-vs-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-19-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sandeep-kumar-richhariya-vs-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-19-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sandeep Kumar Richhariya vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 19 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-12T23:04:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sandeep-kumar-richhariya-vs-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-19-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1500,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sandeep-kumar-richhariya-vs-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-19-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sandeep-kumar-richhariya-vs-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-19-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sandeep-kumar-richhariya-vs-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-19-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Sandeep Kumar Richhariya vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 19 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-12T23:04:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sandeep-kumar-richhariya-vs-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-19-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sandeep-kumar-richhariya-vs-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-19-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sandeep-kumar-richhariya-vs-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-19-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sandeep Kumar Richhariya vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 19 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":"Sandeep Kumar Richhariya vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 19 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\/sandeep-kumar-richhariya-vs-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-19-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sandeep Kumar Richhariya vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 19 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-kumar-richhariya-vs-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-19-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-12T23:04:06+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-kumar-richhariya-vs-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-19-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-kumar-richhariya-vs-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-19-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sandeep Kumar Richhariya vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 19 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-12T23:04:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-kumar-richhariya-vs-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-19-february-2008"},"wordCount":1500,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-kumar-richhariya-vs-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-19-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-kumar-richhariya-vs-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-19-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-kumar-richhariya-vs-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-19-february-2008","name":"Sandeep Kumar Richhariya vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 19 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-12T23:04:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-kumar-richhariya-vs-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-19-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-kumar-richhariya-vs-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-19-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-kumar-richhariya-vs-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-19-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sandeep Kumar Richhariya vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 19 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\/152336","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=152336"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152336\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=152336"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=152336"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=152336"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}