{"id":154657,"date":"2010-10-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-nadarajan-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-21-october-2010"},"modified":"2016-06-01T20:17:30","modified_gmt":"2016-06-01T14:47:30","slug":"s-nadarajan-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-21-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-nadarajan-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-21-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"S.Nadarajan vs The Inspector Of Police on 21 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S.Nadarajan vs The Inspector Of Police on 21 October, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 21\/10\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN\n\nCrl.RC(MD)No.158 of 2010\nMP.NO.1\/2010\n\nS.Nadarajan\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nVs\n\nThe Inspector of Police\nSuchindram Police Station\nKanyakumari District\t\t\t... Respondent<\/pre>\n<p>Prayer<\/p>\n<p>This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated 8.2.2010 passed in<br \/>\nCrl.MP.No.3536\/2009 by the learned  Judicial Magistrate II, Nagercoil,<br \/>\ndismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Code<br \/>\nof Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<p>!For Petitioner   &#8230; Mr.C.Rajakumar<br \/>\n^For Respondent   &#8230; Mr.L.Murugan, GA<\/p>\n<p>:Order<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThis Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the order dated<br \/>\n8.2.2010 passed in Crl.MP.No.3536\/2009 by the learned  Judicial Magistrate II,<br \/>\nNagercoil, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3)<br \/>\nof the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2. The revision petitioner is the defacto complainant and the father<br \/>\nof the deceased. The revision petitioner has filed the above petition in<br \/>\nCrl.MP.No.3536\/ 2009 under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure to<br \/>\ndirect the respondent Police to further investigate the matter on the ground<br \/>\nthat the accused, namely, Sivas, against whom charge sheet has been filed by the<br \/>\nrespondent Police, in the course of investigation has implicated one<br \/>\nAnandakumar, Karuthuraman, Vetri, Thangadurai @ Durai to have committed the<br \/>\nmurder with the aid of their henchmen and there was a clear motive for them to<br \/>\ncommit the crime in view of the case registered in Cr.No.290\/2008,<br \/>\nPRC.No.11\/2009 under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii), 307 read with<br \/>\n149 of IPC read with Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention<br \/>\nof Damage and Loss)  Act read with Section 149 of IPC.  The revision petitioner<br \/>\nhas raised various allegations and also entertained certain doubts about the<br \/>\nmanner in which the investigation has been done by the respondent Police.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3.  In the counter filed by the respondent Police,  they have stated<br \/>\nthat they have conducted a full and fair investigation diligently and the charge<br \/>\nsheet has been filed against one Sivas in accordance with law.  The respondent<br \/>\nPolice reiterated the same contentions as put forward by them before the court<br \/>\nbelow that the petitioner was attempting to divert the case in order to save his<br \/>\nfamily honour, as it revealed in the course of investigation that the accused<br \/>\nSivas had illicit contact with the wife of the deceased and the revision<br \/>\npetitioner is attempting to save his family honour by trying to hide the truth,<br \/>\nmaking false implication of those persons in order to settle his personal score<br \/>\nagainst them.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4. The learned  Judicial Magistrate has dismissed the petition<br \/>\nsolely on the ground that he had no power to order further investigation and to<br \/>\nrectify the defects in the investigation.  The learned Judicial Magistrate<br \/>\nplaced reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in the<br \/>\ncase of Reeta Nag Vs. State of West Bengal and others [2009-3-SCC-Crl-1051],<br \/>\nwherein the Honourable Supreme Court held that the Magistrate having passed a<br \/>\nfinal order framing charges against the accused and discharging the remaining<br \/>\nten accused in the said case, it was no longer within his jurisdiction to direct<br \/>\nreinvestigation into the case.  In the said case, on facts the Honourable<br \/>\nSupreme Court observed that having framed charges against certain accused and<br \/>\ndischarging the remaining accused, at that stage, it is not within the<br \/>\njurisdiction of the learned  Magistrate to order further investigation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5.  Mr.C.Rajakumar, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner<br \/>\nvehemently contended that the learned  Magistrate is competent to order further<br \/>\ninvestigation even after taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of the<br \/>\nPolice report filed under Section 173(2) of  Code of Criminal Procedure. The<br \/>\nlearned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court<br \/>\nreported in 2008-1-MLJ-Crl-1393-SC [Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of UP and others] in<br \/>\nsupport of  his contention that in cases where the learned  Magistrate finds<br \/>\nthat the Police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all or has<br \/>\nnot done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the Police to do the<br \/>\ninvestigation properly and can monitor the same. The Honourable Supreme Court in<br \/>\nthe decision cited supra has held as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;16.  The power in the Magistrate to order further investigation under Section<br \/>\n156(3) is an independent power, and does not affect the power of the<br \/>\ninvestigating officer to further investigate the case even after submission of<br \/>\nhis report vide Section 173(8).  Hence, the Magistrate can order re-opening of<br \/>\nthe investigation even after the Police submits the final report vide State of<br \/>\nBihar Vs. AC.Saidanna [AIR-1980-SC-326].\n<\/p>\n<p>17.  In our opinion Section 156(3) CR.PC is wide enough to include all such<br \/>\npowers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation,<br \/>\nand it includes the power to order registration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a<br \/>\nproper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation<br \/>\nhas not been done, or is not being done by the Police.  Section 156(3) Cr.PC<br \/>\nthough briefly worded in our opinion is very wide and it will include all such<br \/>\nincidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6. In yet another decision reported in 2009-7-SCC-685 [Kishan Lal<br \/>\nVs. Dharmendra Bafna and another], the Honourable Supreme Court has held that it<br \/>\nis permissible for a learned  Magistrate to direct further investigation, if the<br \/>\ninvestigation is found to be tainted and or otherwise unfair or is otherwise<br \/>\nnecessary in the ends of justice.  The Honourable Supreme Court has emphasized<br \/>\nthat when a final form is filed by the Investigating Officer in exercise of his<br \/>\npower under Sub Section (2) of Section 173 of the Code, the first informant has<br \/>\nto be given notice and he may file a protest petition which in a given case may<br \/>\nbe treated to be a complaint petition, on the basis whereof after fulfilling the<br \/>\nstatutory requirements cognizance may be taken.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7.  Reliance was also placed on the decision of this court reported<br \/>\nin 2007-2-MLJ-Crl-646 [Dr.N.B.Sekar Vs. Dr.Ajitha Sekar and another] wherein a<br \/>\nlearned single Judge of this court, after referring to the decision of the<br \/>\nHonourable Supreme Court rendered in the case of Popular Muthiah Vs. State<br \/>\n[2006-2-MLJ-Crl-779], has held thus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The Magistrate has jurisdiction in the event a final form is filed (i) to<br \/>\naccept the final for; (ii) in the event a protest petition is filed to treat the<br \/>\nsame as a complaint petition and if a prima facie case is made out to issue<br \/>\nprocesses; (iii) to take cognizance of the offences against a person, although a<br \/>\nfinal form has been filed by the Police, in the event he comes to the opinion<br \/>\nthat sufficient materials exist in the case diary itself therefore; and (iv) to<br \/>\ndirect reinvestigation into the matter.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8. Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages that a<br \/>\nPolice officer can investigate cognizable offence.  During the investigation,<br \/>\nthe Investigating Officer can examine the person acquainted with the facts of<br \/>\nthe case and reduce his statement into writing.  Section 173 of the Code of<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure requires submission of a final report by a Police Officer to<br \/>\nthe Magistrate as soon as the investigation is completed.  The final report<br \/>\nsubmitted by the investigating officer is not final, in case the investigating<br \/>\nofficer has not conducted the case properly, acted negligently and there is<br \/>\nmaterial on record that there is further scope for investigation.  Such a<br \/>\nprovision is there under Section 173(8) of the  Code of Criminal Procedure.<br \/>\nThough a final form is submitted under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure, nothing contained in Section 173(2) of the Code precludes further<br \/>\ninvestigation with respect to the offence after a report has been submitted to<br \/>\nthe Magistrate.  The law does not preclude the Investigating Officer to further<br \/>\ninvestigate the case and collect further evidence.  To meet such circumstances,<br \/>\nthere is a provision under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9.  In the decision cited supra, the Honourable Supreme Court has<br \/>\nreiterated that it was open to the Police to conduct further reinvestigation<br \/>\neven after the court took cognizance of any offence on the strength of a Police<br \/>\nreport earlier submitted. If the defacto complainant files a petition saying<br \/>\nthat real culprits were not included in the final report or there is lacuna in<br \/>\nthe investigation which will cause failure of justice, the learned  Magistrate<br \/>\nshould consider the same and after such consideration, if he comes to a prima<br \/>\nfacie conclusion that proper investigation was not conducted, the Magistrate<br \/>\nwill be free to order further investigation to avoid failure of justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10.  Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure  gives power to<br \/>\nthe Police to conduct further investigation with permission from the Magistrate<br \/>\neven in a case where cognizance of the offence has already been taken by the<br \/>\nMagistrate.  Section 173(8) puts no bar on the Magistrate to order further<br \/>\ninvestigation.  If the Magistrate come to the conclusion that in the interest of<br \/>\njustice a further investigation is necessary, he can trigger the Police to<br \/>\nexercise the power under Section 173(8), as Police has power to conduct further<br \/>\ninvestigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure even after<br \/>\ntaking cognizance.  The Magistrate has power to point out to the Police to<br \/>\nexercise their duties under Section 173(8), if on the facts of the case, it is<br \/>\nrevealed that further investigation is necessary.  It is the duty of the court<br \/>\nto see that ultimate truth is revealed and no innocent shall be punished and at<br \/>\nthe same time, real culprits shall not escape.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t11.  In the present case, it appears that before accepting the<br \/>\nPolice report, no notice was given to the complainant. The complainant on his<br \/>\nown volition approached the concerned Magistrate stating that real culprits have<br \/>\nnot been booked due to faulty investigation pointing out to certain defects in<br \/>\nthe investigation.  The said petition has been resisted by the respondent Police<br \/>\non the ground that a detailed investigation has been done and a charge sheet has<br \/>\nbeen filed against the real culprit.  It is to be pointed out here that Sub<br \/>\nSection (8) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits further<br \/>\ninvestigation and even dehors any direction from the court and as such, it is<br \/>\nopen to the Police to conduct proper investigation even after the court has<br \/>\ntaken cognizance of any offence on the strength of a Police report.  In view of<br \/>\nthe afore said position of law, if there is necessity for further investigation,<br \/>\nthe same can certainly be done as prescribed by law.  It is the duty of the<br \/>\nMagistrate to see whether there is any such necessity to order further<br \/>\ninvestigation on the material placed before him and in the present case, the<br \/>\nlearned  Magistrate fell into an error by merely dismissing the petition on the<br \/>\nground that he has no power to direct further investigation by the respondent<br \/>\nPolice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t12.  In view of the reasons stated above, the order dated 8.2.2010<br \/>\npassed by the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Nagercoil in Crl.MP.No.3536\/2009<br \/>\nis liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. The learned<br \/>\nMagistrate is directed to peruse the materials placed on record and arrive at a<br \/>\nconclusion as to whether there is any necessity for further investigation and<br \/>\npass orders accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t13.  In the result, this criminal revision petition is allowed.<br \/>\nConsequently, the connected MP is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Srcm<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Judicial Magistrate II, Nagercoil<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court S.Nadarajan vs The Inspector Of Police on 21 October, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21\/10\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN Crl.RC(MD)No.158 of 2010 MP.NO.1\/2010 S.Nadarajan &#8230; Petitioner Vs The Inspector of Police Suchindram Police Station Kanyakumari District &#8230; Respondent Prayer This Criminal Revision Case is filed [&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-154657","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>S.Nadarajan vs The Inspector Of Police on 21 October, 2010 - 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\/s-nadarajan-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-21-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Nadarajan vs The Inspector Of Police on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-nadarajan-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-21-october-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-01T14:47:30+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-nadarajan-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-21-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-nadarajan-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-21-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Nadarajan vs The Inspector Of Police on 21 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-01T14:47:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-nadarajan-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-21-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1860,\"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\\\/s-nadarajan-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-21-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-nadarajan-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-21-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-nadarajan-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-21-october-2010\",\"name\":\"S.Nadarajan vs The Inspector Of Police on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-01T14:47:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-nadarajan-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-nadarajan-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-21-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-nadarajan-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Nadarajan vs The Inspector Of Police on 21 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/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":"S.Nadarajan vs The Inspector Of Police on 21 October, 2010 - 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\/s-nadarajan-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-21-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Nadarajan vs The Inspector Of Police on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-nadarajan-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-21-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-01T14:47:30+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-nadarajan-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-21-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-nadarajan-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-21-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Nadarajan vs The Inspector Of Police on 21 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-01T14:47:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-nadarajan-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-21-october-2010"},"wordCount":1860,"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\/s-nadarajan-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-21-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-nadarajan-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-21-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-nadarajan-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-21-october-2010","name":"S.Nadarajan vs The Inspector Of Police on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-01T14:47:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-nadarajan-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-nadarajan-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-21-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-nadarajan-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Nadarajan vs The Inspector Of Police on 21 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/154657","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=154657"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154657\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154657"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154657"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154657"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}