{"id":191541,"date":"2007-12-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-12-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/periyasamy-vs-the-state-on-20-december-2007"},"modified":"2016-05-17T00:18:42","modified_gmt":"2016-05-16T18:48:42","slug":"periyasamy-vs-the-state-on-20-december-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/periyasamy-vs-the-state-on-20-december-2007","title":{"rendered":"Periyasamy vs The State on 20 December, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Periyasamy vs The State on 20 December, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 20\/12\/2007\n\nCoram\nTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHY\n\nCrl.O.P.No.5742 of 2005\nand\nM.P.No.2 of 2006\n\t\nPeriyasamy\t\t\t\t\t..   Petitioner\n\nvs.\n\n1.The State, rep.by\n  the Inspector of Police,\n  Ottanchathiram Police Station,\n  Dindigul District.\n\n2.V.Muthuvel\n  Prop.V.M.Commission Mandi\n  V.M.Illam,\n  3rd Street, Thiruvalluvar Salai,\n  Ottanchathiram,\n  Dindigul District\t\t\t\t..  Respondents\n\n\tCriminal original petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the\nrecords pertaining to the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,\nDindigul, Dindigul District in Cr.M.P.No.3285 of 2007 and set aside the same.\n\n!For Petitioner \t\t\t\t... Mr.R.Anand\n\n^For Respondents   \t\t\t\t... Ms.Siva Ayyappan,G.A.forR1\n\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe second respondent filed a private complaint before the learned<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate, No.I, Dindigul, against the petitioner alleging that the<br \/>\npetitioner had committed offences punishable under Sections 379 and 420 I.P.C.<br \/>\nThe crux of the allegation is that a cheque belonging to the second respondent<br \/>\nwas stolen by the petitioner  and subsequently, the same was filled up to his<br \/>\nconvenience to file the private complaint against the petitioner under Section<br \/>\n138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate referred the same<br \/>\nto the first respondent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation.  The said<br \/>\norder of the learned Magistrate, passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is under<br \/>\nchallenge in this petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Anand would submit that the<br \/>\nprayer in the complaint itself was only to take cognizance on the complaint<br \/>\nfiled by the second respondent and therefore, the learned Magistrate was not<br \/>\nwithin his competence to refer the complaint to the police for investigation.<br \/>\nHe would further submit that the case under Section 138 N.I.Act, filed on the<br \/>\nbasis of the said cheque in question, is pending before the same Magistrate and<br \/>\nthis complaint has been preferred only out of malice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that the first<br \/>\nrespondent has not so far registered any case on the complaint.  However,<br \/>\nenquiry is going on.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The second respondent has not made appearance since notice has not been<br \/>\nserved on him.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner and also perused the records.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it<br \/>\nis not legal or it is not within the competence of the learned Magistrate to<br \/>\nrefer the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.<br \/>\nwhen the prayer itself is only for taking cognizance of the offences cannot be<br \/>\ncountenanced at all.  It is needless to say that whenever a private complaint is<br \/>\nfiled before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate has got two options.<br \/>\nThe first option is to refer the complaint, without taking cognizance, under<br \/>\nSection 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the second option is to take cognizance and to<br \/>\nproceed further.  If the Magistrate takes cognizance, he had to record the<br \/>\nstatement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and further to record the<br \/>\nstatement of witnesses, if any, under Section 202(2) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, it is<br \/>\nfor him to decide whether to issue process for appearance of the accused or not.<br \/>\nIf he decides that there is no case made out, requiring to issue process to the<br \/>\naccused, he would dismiss the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Otherwise, he<br \/>\nwould issue process under Section 204 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. A perusal of the scheme of all these provisions, namely, Section 156,<br \/>\nSections 200 to 204 Cr.P.C. would go to show that it is well within the<br \/>\ncompetence and power of the Magistrate to refer the complaint to the police<br \/>\nunder Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., without taking cognizance.  Therefore, in my<br \/>\nconsidered opinion, in the instant case, the learned Magistrate has exercised<br \/>\nhis power rightly and there is no infirmity in the said order.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. So far as the second contention of the learned counsel that the<br \/>\ncomplaint has been filed  with malice also cannot be considered at this stage.<br \/>\nWhether the allegations made in the complaint are true or not are all matters<br \/>\nfor investigation and this Court, while exercising its power under Section 482<br \/>\nCr.P.C., cannot go into those disputed questions to give a finding whether the<br \/>\ncomplaint is false or true.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. In the above stated circumstances, I do not find any ground to set<br \/>\naside the order of the learned Magistrate.  Hence, this criminal original<br \/>\npetition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would however submit that there<br \/>\nmay be a direction to the first respondent police to conduct fair investigation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. In my considered opinion such a direction need not be given, since it<br \/>\nis the bounden duty of the first respondent to hold a thorough and impartial<br \/>\ninvestigation.  While doing so, the first respondent shall afford sufficient<br \/>\nopportunity to the petitioner to produce his documents and evidence in respect<br \/>\nof the allegations made against him.  The first respondent shall complete the<br \/>\ninvestigation within a period of two months and file appropriate final report.\n<\/p>\n<p>msk\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.The Inspector of Police,<br \/>\n  Ottanchathiram Police Station,<br \/>\n  Dindigul District.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,<br \/>\n  Dindigul, Dindigul District<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Periyasamy vs The State on 20 December, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20\/12\/2007 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHY Crl.O.P.No.5742 of 2005 and M.P.No.2 of 2006 Periyasamy .. Petitioner vs. 1.The State, rep.by the Inspector of Police, Ottanchathiram Police Station, Dindigul District. 2.V.Muthuvel Prop.V.M.Commission Mandi V.M.Illam, 3rd [&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-191541","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 v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Periyasamy vs The State on 20 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/periyasamy-vs-the-state-on-20-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Periyasamy vs The State on 20 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/periyasamy-vs-the-state-on-20-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-12-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-16T18:48:42+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=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/periyasamy-vs-the-state-on-20-december-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/periyasamy-vs-the-state-on-20-december-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Periyasamy vs The State on 20 December, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-16T18:48:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/periyasamy-vs-the-state-on-20-december-2007\"},\"wordCount\":763,\"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\\\/periyasamy-vs-the-state-on-20-december-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/periyasamy-vs-the-state-on-20-december-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/periyasamy-vs-the-state-on-20-december-2007\",\"name\":\"Periyasamy vs The State on 20 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-16T18:48:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/periyasamy-vs-the-state-on-20-december-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/periyasamy-vs-the-state-on-20-december-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/periyasamy-vs-the-state-on-20-december-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Periyasamy vs The State on 20 December, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Periyasamy vs The State on 20 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/periyasamy-vs-the-state-on-20-december-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Periyasamy vs The State on 20 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/periyasamy-vs-the-state-on-20-december-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-12-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-16T18:48:42+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":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/periyasamy-vs-the-state-on-20-december-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/periyasamy-vs-the-state-on-20-december-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Periyasamy vs The State on 20 December, 2007","datePublished":"2007-12-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-16T18:48:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/periyasamy-vs-the-state-on-20-december-2007"},"wordCount":763,"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\/periyasamy-vs-the-state-on-20-december-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/periyasamy-vs-the-state-on-20-december-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/periyasamy-vs-the-state-on-20-december-2007","name":"Periyasamy vs The State on 20 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-12-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-16T18:48:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/periyasamy-vs-the-state-on-20-december-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/periyasamy-vs-the-state-on-20-december-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/periyasamy-vs-the-state-on-20-december-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Periyasamy vs The State on 20 December, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191541","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=191541"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191541\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191541"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191541"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191541"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}