{"id":16491,"date":"2010-08-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-nagarajan-vs-state-through-on-30-august-2010"},"modified":"2016-11-15T20:18:57","modified_gmt":"2016-11-15T14:48:57","slug":"m-nagarajan-vs-state-through-on-30-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-nagarajan-vs-state-through-on-30-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"M.Nagarajan vs State Through on 30 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M.Nagarajan vs State Through on 30 August, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 30\/08\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN\n\nCrl.R.C.(MD).No.677 of 2009\nand\nM.P.No.1 of 2009\n\nM.Nagarajan\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\nState through\nSub-Inspector of Police,\nAnna Nagar, Madurai.\t\t\t.. Respondent\n\n\nPrayer\n\nCriminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 &amp; 401 of Criminal Procedure Code\nto set aside the Judgement passed in C.A.No.89 of 2008, dated 27.07.2009 by the\nPrincipal Sessions Judge of Madurai confirming the conviction and sentence\npassed in C.C.No.244 of 2007 dated 16.07.2008 by the judicial Magistrate No.VI\nof Madurai and allow this criminal revision petition.\n\n!For Petitioner  ...  Mr.R.Ramasamy\n^For Respondent  ...  Mr.P.Rajendran\n\t\t      Govt. Advocate (crl.side)\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe above criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgement<br \/>\nof conviction and sentence passed in Criminal appeal No.89 of 2008 dated<br \/>\n27.07.2009 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, confirming the<br \/>\njudgement of the conviction and sentence passed for the alleged offence under<br \/>\nSection 4 of Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, dated 16.07.2008, by the<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai to allow the criminal revision petition and<br \/>\nset aside the conviction and sentence of the courts below:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(a) The P.W.1 Subarani lodged a complaint with the Sub Inspector of<br \/>\nPolice, Annanagar, Madurai on 04.01.2007 at about 22.30 hrs, stating that she<br \/>\nwas studying in the 1st year of the Law degree course. At about 8.45 p.m. she<br \/>\nand her 3 years old child who were returning after purchasing some household<br \/>\narticles and while she was nearing Mookabika Blood Lab, the accused came in<br \/>\nfront of her and wilfully dashed against her and abused her in filthy language.<br \/>\nThe said complaint was registered by the investigation officer in Crime No.15 of<br \/>\n2007, an alleged offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of women<br \/>\nharassment Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. In the said criminal case 7 witnesses were examined, 4 documents were<br \/>\nmarked.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The prosecution case runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(a)The S.I. of Police, Anna Nagar, Madurai has filed a charge sheet<br \/>\nagainst the accused before the lower court stating that on 04.01.2007 at about<br \/>\n20.45 hours when the complainant Subha Rani was coming with her 3 year old child<br \/>\nalong the southern street of Sri Moogambigai blood testing laboratory situated<br \/>\nat Anna Nagar 80 feet road, the accused who came from east to west dashed on her<br \/>\nand attempted to outrage her modesty and further abused her in filthy language<br \/>\nand thereby committed an offence punishable u\/s.4 of T.N. Prohibitaion of women<br \/>\nHarassment Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b) The learned Judicial Magistrate No.6, Madurai took cognizance of the<br \/>\noffence and furnished copies of the case records to the accused u\/s.207 Cr.P.C.<br \/>\nSince the learned Magistrate found prima facie case against the accused the<br \/>\nlower court framed a charge u\/s.4 of prohibition of Women harassment Act against<br \/>\nthe accused and when explained and questioned the accused pleaded not guilty.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(c) To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked<br \/>\nExs.P.1 to P.4.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(d) When the accused was questioned with regard to the incriminating<br \/>\ncircumstances in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses u\/s.313 Cr.P.C. the<br \/>\naccused denied the same as false.  No oral or documentary evidence was on the<br \/>\nside of the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(e) On hearing both sides and on consideration of the evidence on record,<br \/>\nthe trial court found the accused guilty u\/s.4 of T.N. Prohibition of Women<br \/>\nHarassment Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine<br \/>\nof Rs.1000\/- in default to undergo S.I. for one month.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (f) Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred<br \/>\nthis appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(g) The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the<br \/>\nconviction and sentence of the lower court are sustainable in law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(h) Point: The charge against the accused is that on 04.01.2007 at about<br \/>\n20.45 hours at Anna Nagar 80 feet road near Moogambigai Laboratory when P.W.1<br \/>\nSubarani was walking on the road with her child, the accused came from east to<br \/>\nwest and attempted to outrage the modesty of P.W.1 and also abused her in filthy<br \/>\nlanguage and hence the accused is charged u\/s.4 of T.N. prohibition of women<br \/>\nharassment Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) To prove this charge the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked<br \/>\nExs.P.1 to P.4.  After considering the oral and documentary evidence the learned<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate No.6, Madurai found the accused guilty u\/s. 4 of T.N.<br \/>\nprohibition of women harassment Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 6<br \/>\nmonths and to pay a fine of Rs.1000\/- in default to undergo S.I. for one month.<br \/>\nAggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(j) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of P.W.1<br \/>\nis not corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses P.Ws.2 to 4, there<br \/>\nis contradiction between Ex.P.1 complaint and the evidence of P.W.1 and there is<br \/>\nno external injury also.  P.W.1 was a law college student at the time of<br \/>\noccurrence.  She has deposed that on 04.01.2007 at about 08.30 p.m. when she was<br \/>\ncoming along Anna Nagar road near Moohambigai Blood testing laboratory with her<br \/>\nchild, a man aged 30 years came in a cycle from the opposite direction and<br \/>\ndashed P.W.1 he also touched the chest of P.W.1, she raised an alarm as if the<br \/>\naccused committed a theft of her chain, immediately the public caught hold of<br \/>\nthe accused and contacted emergency police phone 100, later she lodged complaint<br \/>\nat the Anna Nagar police and it is marked as Ex.P.1. In Ex.P.1, P.W.1 has stated<br \/>\nthat on 04.01.2007 at about 8.45 p.m. when she was walking with her 3 year old<br \/>\nchild near Moogambigai Blood testing laboratory the accused dashed on her and<br \/>\nabused her in filthy language, the public caught hold of her and brought her to<br \/>\nthe police station.  Learned counsel for the appellant submitted in Ex.P.1 P.W.1<br \/>\nhas stated that the accused dashed on her and abused her in filthy language.<br \/>\nBut during her evidence she has stated that the accused touched her chest after<br \/>\ndashing her. The learned counsel submitted that this is a material contradiction<br \/>\naffecting the prosecution.  But P.W.1 was walking with her child on the road,<br \/>\nsuddenly the accused appeared and dashed on her and touched her chest.  The<br \/>\nfirst impression would be some body has snatched her chain only.  She raised<br \/>\nalarm that the accused has committed theft of her chain. Immediately the accused<br \/>\nwas caught hold of by the public.  So the contradiction is natural and it is not<br \/>\naffecting the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(k) Now learned counsel for the appellant submitted, though P.W.1 has<br \/>\ndeposed that the accused was caught hold of by the public and brought to the<br \/>\npolice station,  P.Ws.2 to 4 have not supported her evidence and they turned<br \/>\nhostile.  But in the FIR itself it is stated that the accused was caught hold of<br \/>\nby the public immediately and he was brought to the police station.  The fact<br \/>\nremains that the accused was caught hold of and brought to the police station by<br \/>\nthe public.  Though the prosecution examined P.Ws.2 to 4 to prove this fact,<br \/>\nunfortunately they turned hostile, P.W.1 is a lady.  the accused an able bodied<br \/>\nman was brought to the police station.  If P.Ws.2 to 4 had not brought him to<br \/>\nthe police station, then who brought the accused to the police station? Hence,<br \/>\nit seems though P.Ws.2 to 4 have brought the accused to the police station now<br \/>\nthey turned hostile.  But the evidence of P.W.1 is trustworthy.  She has no<br \/>\nenmity against the accused.  The evidence of P.W.1 is spontaneous.  So even a<br \/>\nsolitary evidence of P.w.1, is sufficient to prove the offence against the<br \/>\naccused.  The evidence of P.W.1 is strengthened by the arrest of the accused<br \/>\nimmediately after the occurrence.  Learned counsel for the appellant submitted<br \/>\nthat there was some quarrel between the accused and P.W.1 but it was exaggerated<br \/>\nby P.W.1 and a false complaint was lodged.  But before the court, P.W.1 has<br \/>\ncategorically stated, the overt act of the accused.  P.W.1 is a law college<br \/>\nstudent.  So this court feels the evidence of P.W.1 is sufficient to establish<br \/>\nthe guilt of the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(l) P.Ws.5 and 6 have deposed about observation mahazar.  P.W.7 has<br \/>\ndeposed about the investigation.  P.W.7 also admitted that on 04.01.2007 at<br \/>\nabout 22.30 hours P.W.1 presented a complaint in the police station, a case in<br \/>\nCr.No.15\/07 u\/s.509 IPC was registered.  He examined the witnesses and recorded<br \/>\ntheir statements. P.Ws.2 to 4 were examined in the police station immediately<br \/>\nafter the occurrence.  Later they inspected the place of occurrence and prepared<br \/>\nobservation mahazar.  It is marked as Ex.P.2. The rough sketch is marked as<br \/>\nExp.P.4. So considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 7 the prosecution has proved<br \/>\nthat the accused has committed the offence u\/s.4 of the prohibition of women<br \/>\nHarassment Act. The lower Court has also proceeded in the right path and came to<br \/>\nthe correct conclusion. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding<br \/>\nof the lower court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(m) As far as sentence is concerned the appellant was sentenced to undergo<br \/>\nR.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000\/-. When a lady while walking on<br \/>\nthe road the accused voluntarily dashed on her and outraged the modesty of the<br \/>\nlady. Considering the nature of offence, the sentence is also not excessive.<br \/>\nHence the conviction and sentence of the lower court are confirmed.  The point<br \/>\nis answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(n) The appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence passed<br \/>\nby judicial magistrate No.6 Madurai in C.C.No.244\/07 dated 16.07.2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that there is no<br \/>\ncorroborative evidence in this case.  The evidence of the P.W.1 other<br \/>\nprosecution witnesses, their evidence is varied and not in one voice.  The<br \/>\nprosecution witnesses 2, 3 and 4 are eye witnesses.  Actually they rushed to the<br \/>\nspot after the incident which is an admitted fact.  As per the evidence of<br \/>\nP.W.1, she raised an alarm stating that the accused snatched her gold chain.<br \/>\nImmediately the neibours rushed  to the spot and caught hold of the accused.<br \/>\nThereafter P.W.1 disclosed to the public that the accused had molested and used<br \/>\nfilthy language to her.  The learned counsel vehemently argued that, on the side<br \/>\nof the defacto complainant\/P.W.1 one of the evidence cites a difference of<br \/>\nopinion, that the P.W.1 had raised alarm that the accused snatched her chain and<br \/>\nran off, immediately on hearing the alarm the public caught hold of the accused<br \/>\nthen the P.W.1 changed her statement.  This kind of different statements is not<br \/>\nsustainable under law in order to punish the accused.  The learned counsel<br \/>\nargued that the point is not considered by the Court below, so the learned<br \/>\njudges had committed an error and erroneously punished the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution case is well<br \/>\nestablished before the trial Court after examining 7 witnesses and marked 4<br \/>\ndocuments.  P.W.1 was a budding lawyer at the time of the occurrence, so her<br \/>\nevidence is a solid one.  The accused also was taken hold by the public and<br \/>\nhanded over to the police.  As such the occurrence is an admitted one which<br \/>\nhappened in public.  The well considered judgment of the trial Court is<br \/>\nconfirmed by the learned District Judge.  Therefore, the punishment awarded by<br \/>\nthe Court below is an appropriate one.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments<br \/>\nadvanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, arguments advanced<br \/>\nby the learned Public Prosecutor and Judgment of the Court below, this Court is<br \/>\nof the view (1) P.W.1 gave an alarm that her chain was snatched by the accused<br \/>\nafter he was taken hold by the public, the P.W.1 narrated in public that the<br \/>\naccused molested her and abused her in filthy language; this sort of statement<br \/>\ngives a difference of opinion on the side of P.W.1.  This is a Crucial point to<br \/>\nacquit the accused.  (2) P.W.1 had not narrated in her written complaint the<br \/>\nmanner in which the accused molested her and specific manner and filthy language<br \/>\nused.  (3) This Court is of the view that if a lady making such allegations<br \/>\ncould be accepted by the public without analysing and applying considered mind.<br \/>\nThis court&#8217;s further view is that the public will take on a psychological stand<br \/>\nin defence of the woman, and this is a typical case.  Hence, this Court finds it<br \/>\nprudent to set aside the judgment passed in C.A.No.89 of 2008 dated 27.07.2009<br \/>\nby the Principal Sessions Judge of Madurai, confirming the conviction sentence<br \/>\npassed in C.C.No.242 of 2007 dated 16.07.2008, by the Judicial Magistrate No.VI,<br \/>\nMadurai and allowed this Criminal Revision Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWith the result the above Criminal Revision Petition is allowed,<br \/>\nconsequently, the punishment passed by the Court below in C.A.No.89 of 2008<br \/>\ndated 27.07.2009, by the Principal Sessions Judge of Madurai, confirming the<br \/>\nconviction sentence passed in C.C.No.244 of 2007 dated 16.07.2008 by the<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai sets aside the conviction sentence imposed on<br \/>\nthe revision petitioner.  Connected M.P. is closed.  No costs.  It is open to<br \/>\nthe revision petitioner to withdraw the fine amount after observing the legal<br \/>\nformalities of the Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>SKN<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1. The Principal Sessions Judge,<br \/>\n   Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The Judicial Magistrate No.VI,<br \/>\n   Madurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M.Nagarajan vs State Through on 30 August, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30\/08\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.R.C.(MD).No.677 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 M.Nagarajan .. Petitioner Vs. State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Anna Nagar, Madurai. .. Respondent Prayer Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 [&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-16491","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>M.Nagarajan vs State Through on 30 August, 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\/m-nagarajan-vs-state-through-on-30-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.Nagarajan vs State Through on 30 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-nagarajan-vs-state-through-on-30-august-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=\"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-15T14:48:57+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\\\/m-nagarajan-vs-state-through-on-30-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-nagarajan-vs-state-through-on-30-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.Nagarajan vs State Through on 30 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-15T14:48:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-nagarajan-vs-state-through-on-30-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2168,\"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\\\/m-nagarajan-vs-state-through-on-30-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-nagarajan-vs-state-through-on-30-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-nagarajan-vs-state-through-on-30-august-2010\",\"name\":\"M.Nagarajan vs State Through on 30 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-15T14:48:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-nagarajan-vs-state-through-on-30-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-nagarajan-vs-state-through-on-30-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-nagarajan-vs-state-through-on-30-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.Nagarajan vs State Through on 30 August, 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":"M.Nagarajan vs State Through on 30 August, 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\/m-nagarajan-vs-state-through-on-30-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.Nagarajan vs State Through on 30 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-nagarajan-vs-state-through-on-30-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-15T14:48:57+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\/m-nagarajan-vs-state-through-on-30-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-nagarajan-vs-state-through-on-30-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.Nagarajan vs State Through on 30 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-15T14:48:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-nagarajan-vs-state-through-on-30-august-2010"},"wordCount":2168,"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\/m-nagarajan-vs-state-through-on-30-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-nagarajan-vs-state-through-on-30-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-nagarajan-vs-state-through-on-30-august-2010","name":"M.Nagarajan vs State Through on 30 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-15T14:48:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-nagarajan-vs-state-through-on-30-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-nagarajan-vs-state-through-on-30-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-nagarajan-vs-state-through-on-30-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.Nagarajan vs State Through on 30 August, 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\/16491","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=16491"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16491\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16491"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16491"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16491"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}