{"id":176853,"date":"2008-12-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santro-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-4-december-2008"},"modified":"2016-08-13T22:27:55","modified_gmt":"2016-08-13T16:57:55","slug":"santro-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-4-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santro-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-4-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Santro vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Santro vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 December, 2008<\/div>\n
Criminal Revision No. 1173 of 2008                       1\n\n\n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                         AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                                 Criminal Revision No. 1173 of 2008\n                                 Date of decision:- 4.12.2008\n\nSantro                                            ...petitioner\n\n                          Versus\n\nState of Haryana and another                      ...respondents.<\/pre>\n
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH<\/p>\n
Present:     Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate,
\n             for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
             Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana
\n             for the State.\n<\/p>\n
             Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate
\n             for respondent No.2<\/p>\n
RANJIT SINGH J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             Prosecutrix, Santro has filed this revision petition impugning<\/p>\n
order passed by Additional Sessions Judge-III, Jind. FIR          No. 123 dated<\/p>\n
19.9.2001 was lodged by the petitioner at police station Pillu Khera<\/p>\n
alleging that on 18.9.2001 at about 9.30 a.m. when she was present in her<\/p>\n
house, accused Tribuwan        and Jagdishanad entered into her house and<\/p>\n
caught hold of the petitioner and started misbehaving with her.           They<\/p>\n
allegedly removed salwar of the prosecutrix and tried to commit rape on her.<\/p>\n
She raised an alarm which attracted Ramesh and Satbir to the spot. On the<\/p>\n
basis of a statement made by the prosecutrix-petitioner FIR under Sections<\/p>\n
354, 452, 376\/511 IPC was registered. After investigation, the prosecution<\/p>\n
found that there was lack of evidence against Jagdishanad and challan was<\/p>\n
presented only against Tribhuwan under the said sections. Sessions Judge,<\/p>\n
Jind, however, found that no offence under Sections 376\/511 IPC was made
\n Criminal Revision No. 1173 of 2008                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
out and accordingly sent the case back for trial to Judicial Magistrate,<\/p>\n
Safidon. Petitioner appeared before the Court and gave her evidence and<\/p>\n
thereafter the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
to summon Jagdishanad. This application was allowed by the Magistrate on<\/p>\n
16.11.2007. Jagdishanad challenged this order by way of revision and the<\/p>\n
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Jind has now set aside the order vide which<\/p>\n
the Jagdishanad was summoned. Prosecutrix has accordingly challenged<\/p>\n
the said order by filing the revision petition.\n<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the evidence<\/p>\n
given by the petitioner-prosecutrix, copy of which is placed on record as<\/p>\n
Annexure P-1. The relevant evidence so far as Jagdishanad is concerned<\/p>\n
reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
             “In between Tribhuvan s\/o Jagdish r\/o Fatehpur and Baba<\/p>\n
             Jagdishanand r\/o Chuhar Majra forcibly entered my house and<\/p>\n
             finding me alone, they bolted the door and both caught hold of<\/p>\n
             me forcibly and tried to rape me. Jagdishnand caught hold of<\/p>\n
             me from my arms and pushed me on the earth and Tribhuvan<\/p>\n
             forcibly opened my salwar and tried to rape me. I tried to save<\/p>\n
             myself and made a noise and on hearing my noise my brother-<\/p>\n
             in-law Ramesh s\/o Ratna and Satbir s\/o Lakha r\/o Morkhi came<\/p>\n
             there. On seeing them Tribhuvan accused, who is present in<\/p>\n
             the court, immediately put on his paint and succeed in running<\/p>\n
             away. “<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the evidence as<\/p>\n
noted above satisfied     the test and standard laid down by the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court for adding any additional accused.            Mr. Gorakhnath,
\n Criminal Revision No. 1173 of 2008                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
Advocate, however, very vehemently contends that the Court was justified<\/p>\n
in interfering with the order summoning Jagdishanad, as evidence of<\/p>\n
prosecutrix did not receive any support from her brother-in-law (husband’s<\/p>\n
brother). He further says that one of the eyewitnesses name Satbir was<\/p>\n
given up.\n<\/p>\n
             The Court has taken into consideration the evidence of<\/p>\n
witnesses who have not supported the case of prosecution to interfere in the<\/p>\n
impugned order summoning the respondent Jagdishanad .         The Court has<\/p>\n
not attached the requisite importance to the evidence given by Smt. Santro<\/p>\n
Devi, petitioner which is reproduced above. The Court could be expected to<\/p>\n
take notice that for an offence of this nature the Supreme Court has gone to<\/p>\n
the extent of holding that the evidence of prosecutrix alone in such cases<\/p>\n
would be enough if it can be implicitly relied upon. There is no indication<\/p>\n
from the order which would create doubt on the version of the prosecutrix.<\/p>\n
The version of the prosecutrix more appropriately could not have been<\/p>\n
doubted as other witnesses have turned hostile.\n<\/p>\n
             The Court was bound to see and appreciate if the evidence<\/p>\n
given by the prosecutrix-petitioner would satisfy the test as laid down by<\/p>\n
the Supreme Court or not. In support of his submission, learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioner has drawn my attention to the case of Rajendra Singh Versus<\/p>\n
State of U.P. and anr. 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1021. It has been held in<\/p>\n
this case that the court need not be satisfied that the accused has committed<\/p>\n
an offence and even if it appears that he has committed an offence, that<\/p>\n
would be sufficient to summon the person as an additional accused.         It<\/p>\n
would be of advantage to notice to the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in this regard, which are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
 Criminal Revision No. 1173 of 2008                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
            “15. Section 319 (1), which is relevant for our purpose reads:<\/p>\n
             “319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be<\/p>\n
             guilty of offence –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (1)Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an<\/p>\n
                   offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not<\/p>\n
                   being the accused has committed any offence for which<\/p>\n
                   such person could be tried together with the accused, the<\/p>\n
                   Court may proceed against such person for the offence<\/p>\n
                   which he appears to have committed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    As I see it, the words are plain and the meaning clear.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             When in the course of the enquiry or trial, it appears to the<\/p>\n
             court from the evidence that a person, not arrayed as an<\/p>\n
             accused, appears to have committed any offence for which that<\/p>\n
             person could be tried together with the accused, the court may<\/p>\n
             proceed against that person. Surely, it must appear to the Court<\/p>\n
             from the evidence that someone not arrayed as an accused,<\/p>\n
             appears to have committed an offence. Be it noted, the Court<\/p>\n
             need not be satisfied that he has committed an offence. It need<\/p>\n
             only appear to it that he has committed an offence. In other<\/p>\n
             words, from the evidence it need only appear to it that someone<\/p>\n
             else has committed an offence, to exercise jurisdiction under<\/p>\n
             Section 319 of the Code. Even then, it has a discretion not to<\/p>\n
             proceed, since the expression used is ‘may’ and not ‘shall’. The<\/p>\n
             legislature apparently wanted to leave that discretion to the trial<\/p>\n
             court so as to enable it to exercise its jurisdiction under this<\/p>\n
             section. The expression ‘appears’ indicates an application of
\n Criminal Revision No. 1173 of 2008                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
             mind by the court to the evidence that has come before it and<\/p>\n
             then taking a decision to proceed under Section 319 of the<\/p>\n
             Code or not. With great respect, I see no reason to describe the<\/p>\n
             power as an extraordinary power or to confine the exercise of it<\/p>\n
             only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against<\/p>\n
             any other person against whom action has not been taken. After<\/p>\n
             all, the section only gives power to the court to ensure that all<\/p>\n
             those apparently involved in the commission of an offence are<\/p>\n
             tried together and none left out. I see no reason to curtail this<\/p>\n
             power of the court to do justice to the victim and to the society.<\/p>\n
             It appears to me that it is left to the judicial discretion of the<\/p>\n
             court, judicially trained, to decide to proceed or not to proceed<\/p>\n
             against a person in terms of Section 319 of the Code.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             As has been observed by the Supreme Court the legislature<\/p>\n
apparently has left discretion to the trial Court to summon or not to summon<\/p>\n
additional accused while exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. This<\/p>\n
power, has observed by the Supreme Court, cannot be termed as<\/p>\n
extraordinary power which is to be exercised only under the compelling<\/p>\n
reasons or the circumstances. The Court is given a judicial discretion which<\/p>\n
is to be exercised by the judicially trained mind and accordingly it would<\/p>\n
basically be for a Court deciding such an application which has to take a<\/p>\n
decision on the basis of law and the evidence.\n<\/p>\n
             Mr. Gorakh Nath, on the other hand has referred to the case of<\/p>\n
Michael Machado & Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.,<\/p>\n
2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 75 to say that only suspicion is not sufficient and<\/p>\n
person can be joined as an additional accused if there is a reasonable
\n Criminal Revision No. 1173 of 2008                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
prospect of convicting him of the offence charged.        In fact number of<\/p>\n
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been referred to in the<\/p>\n
case of Rajendra Singh (supra) ultimately to hold that exercise of power<\/p>\n
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be left to the Court trying offence based on<\/p>\n
the evidence that comes before it. It is also observed that the Court must be<\/p>\n
satisfied about a condition precedent for the exercise of power under<\/p>\n
Section 319 of the Code, since what are available under Section 319 is<\/p>\n
basically to be exercised by the Court trying the case. It is better to leave<\/p>\n
the exercise on this discretion to the Court concerned by pointing out the<\/p>\n
relevant consideration which must weigh with the Court and taken into<\/p>\n
consideration while exercising such power.     In Michael Machado’s case<\/p>\n
(supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down well noticed and<\/p>\n
frequently observed test about hope of prospect of conviction on the basis<\/p>\n
of evidence which has generally been followed by various Courts. The<\/p>\n
view is now fairly settled that this is not an extraordinary power and is<\/p>\n
meant to be exercised.       The observation in this regard in the case of<\/p>\n
Municipal Corporation of Delhi versus Ram Kishan Rastogi and others<\/p>\n
1983 (1) RCR Criminal 73 and in the case of Rajender Singh (supra) can<\/p>\n
be noticed with advantage. It is for the trial Court now to see whether the<\/p>\n
evidence given by the prosecutrix and as noticed would satisfy the test of<\/p>\n
‘hope of prospect of a conviction’. Upon that would depend whether the<\/p>\n
Court would exercise the power to summon respondent Jagdishanad as an<\/p>\n
additional accused. This exercise apparently has not been done by the Court<\/p>\n
while passing the impugned order. The order is thus set aside. The case<\/p>\n
would go back to the revisional Court to redo the exercise in the light of the<\/p>\n
law laid down by the Supreme Court as noticed above. Parties would be at
\n Criminal Revision No. 1173 of 2008                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
liberty to make their submissions on the basis of fact as well as law and<\/p>\n
thereupon the Court would pass an order afresh.\n<\/p>\n
              The present petition is accordingly disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
December 04, 2008                                  ( RANJIT SINGH )\nrts                                                JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Santro vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 December, 2008 Criminal Revision No. 1173 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1173 of 2008 Date of decision:- 4.12.2008 Santro …petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another …respondents. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-176853","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSantro vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 December, 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\/santro-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-4-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Santro vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santro-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-4-december-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=\"2008-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-13T16:57:55+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\\\/santro-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-4-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santro-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-4-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Santro vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-13T16:57:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santro-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-4-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1713,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santro-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-4-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santro-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-4-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santro-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-4-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Santro vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-13T16:57:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santro-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-4-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santro-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-4-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santro-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-4-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Santro vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 December, 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":"Santro vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 December, 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\/santro-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-4-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Santro vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santro-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-4-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-13T16:57:55+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\/santro-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-4-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santro-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-4-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Santro vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-13T16:57:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santro-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-4-december-2008"},"wordCount":1713,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santro-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-4-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santro-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-4-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santro-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-4-december-2008","name":"Santro vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-13T16:57:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santro-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-4-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santro-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-4-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santro-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-4-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Santro vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 December, 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\/176853","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=176853"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176853\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=176853"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=176853"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=176853"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}