{"id":201758,"date":"2006-06-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-06-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-muniammal-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-13-june-2006"},"modified":"2014-10-19T12:01:53","modified_gmt":"2014-10-19T06:31:53","slug":"mrs-muniammal-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-13-june-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-muniammal-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-13-june-2006","title":{"rendered":"Mrs. Muniammal vs The Commissioner Of Police on 13 June, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mrs. Muniammal vs The Commissioner Of Police on 13 June, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated: 13\/06\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.  SATHASIVAM   \nand \nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. DHANAPALAN    \n\nHabeas Corpus Petition No.139 of 2006 \n\nMrs. Muniammal                          .. Petitioner\n\n                vs.\n\n\n1. The Commissioner of Police \n   Greater Chennai\n   Egmore, Chennai 600 008. \n\n2. The Secretary to the\n   Government of Tamil Nadu\n   Prohibition &amp; Excise Department\n   Fort St. George\n   Chennai 600 009.                     .. Respondents\n\n                 Petition  filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\npraying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus as stated therein.\n\nFor petitioner    : Mr. P. Prince Premkumar\nFor respondents   : Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran  \n                     Addl. Public Prosecutor\n\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p>(Order of the Court was made by P.  SATHASIVAM,J.,)  <\/p>\n<p>                The petitioner by  name  Muniammal,  challenges  the  impugned<br \/>\norder of  detention dated 10.11.2005, detaining her son, D.  Ravi, as &#8220;Goonda&#8221;<br \/>\nunder Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of  Dangerous  Activities  of<br \/>\nBootleggers,  Drug  Offenders,  Forest  Offenders,  Goondas,  Immoral  Traffic<br \/>\nOffenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short &#8220;Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982&#8221;).\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  After taking us through the impugned  order  of  detention<br \/>\nand  all  other  relevant materials, learned counsel for the petitioner raised<br \/>\nthe following contentions:\n<\/p>\n<p>(i) The detaining authority  failed  to  take  note  of  other  crime  numbers<br \/>\nreferred  to  by  the  Sponsoring  authority  as  well as the learned Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate while passing the order of remand; hence, the  detention  order  is<br \/>\nliable  to  be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of<br \/>\nthe detaining authority;\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii) Though in the representation, the detenu and his mother sought for copies<br \/>\nof certain documents, the same have not been duly furnished by the Government;<br \/>\nand\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii) In the subsequent representation the mother of the detenu has sought for<br \/>\nclean copies of certain documents and the same were supplied after the enquiry<br \/>\nby the Advisory Board was over; hence, the detenu or his mother were prevented<br \/>\nfrom making an effective representation.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  Learned Additional Public Prosecutor by  placing  relevant<br \/>\nrecords  met  all the above said contentions raised by the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  Coming to the first contention, viz.,  non-application  of<br \/>\nmind  on  the  part  of  the  detaining authority by not referring other crime<br \/>\nnumbers except Crime No.892 of 2005, we verified the relevant paragraph, viz.,<br \/>\npara 4 of the grounds of detention.  It is true that the  detaining  authority<br \/>\nhas  taken  note  of the fact that the detenu was in remand in Crime No.892 of<br \/>\n2005 of  S.15  Selaiyur  Police  Station.    He  also  referred  to  the  bail<br \/>\napplication  Crl.M.P.No.10220  of  2005  moved before the Judicial Magistrate,<br \/>\nTambaram.  The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought  to  our  notice<br \/>\nthe  remand  requisition made by the Sponsoring authority and the order passed<br \/>\nby the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram dated 14.10.2005.  It is true that in the<br \/>\nrequisition, the Inspector of Police, Seliayur  has  not  only  mentioned  the<br \/>\nCrime  No.892  of 2005 relating to the ground case, but also referred to other<br \/>\nfour Crime Numbers, viz., Cr.Nos.874 of 2005, 879 of 2005, 883 of 2005 and 890<br \/>\nof 2005.  Likewise, the order  of  the  Judicial  Magistrate,  Tambaram  dated<br \/>\n14.10.2005 refers  all  the above mentioned crime numbers.  It is also brought<br \/>\nto our notice that even in the special report dated 0 5.11.2005 the  Inspector<br \/>\nof Police  has  referred to all the above five crime numbers.  It is the claim<br \/>\nof the learned counsel for the petitioner that in such circumstances it is but<br \/>\nproper on the part of the detaining authority to  refer  all  the  five  crime<br \/>\nnumbers mentioned  in  the documents stated earlier.  According to him, in the<br \/>\nabsence of the same, it is presumed  that  the  detaining  authority  has  not<br \/>\napplied  his  mind  and  verified  the  fact regarding those crime numbers and<br \/>\nhence, the detention order passed by him cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  In support  of  the  above  contention,  he  relied  on  a<br \/>\nDivision Bench decision of this Court dated 27.03.2006 in HCP.No.1296 and 1298<br \/>\nof 2005  (Muniammal  and another vs.  Secretary to Government, Prohibition and<br \/>\nExcise XII Department, Chennai 600 009 and another).  We verified the  factual<br \/>\ndetails in  the said decision.  It is useful to mention that the detenu in the<br \/>\ncase on hand had 24 adverse cases to his credit.  It is not in dispute that in<br \/>\nall the 24 cases, the offence involved is one under Section 379 IPC.   On  the<br \/>\nother  hand,  the  ground  case  in  Crime  No.892  of 2005 relates to various<br \/>\noffences under Sections 341 , 427, 392 and 506(II) IPC.  It is not in  dispute<br \/>\nthat  offence  under  Section 392 is graver in nature than all other offences,<br \/>\nfor which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for 10 years and  fine.    In<br \/>\nsuch circumstances, we are of the view that though the detaining authority was<br \/>\nin  possession  of  all the details including the earlier crime numbers, after<br \/>\ntaking note of all those materials and considering the fact that Crime  No.892<br \/>\nof  2005  relates to a graver offence, referred the same in paragraph-4 of the<br \/>\ngrounds of detention.  In such circumstances, we are  of  the  view  that  the<br \/>\ndecision   relied   on   by   the   learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  is<br \/>\ndistinguishable on facts and not applicable to the case on hand.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  On the other hand, learned  Additional  Public  Prosecutor<br \/>\nhas  brought  to  our  notice  the Division Bench decision of this Court dated<br \/>\n11.10.1995 made in HCP.No.744 of 1995 (Kaleeth vs.   Commissioner  of  Police,<br \/>\nMadras City, Egmore, Chennai 600 008 and another).  In that case, in identical<br \/>\ncircumstances,  the Division Bench rejected a similar contention raised before<br \/>\nit.  In this regard, it is also relevant to  refer  the  following  conclusion<br \/>\narrived at by the Division Bench:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;4.   The  second submission was that, the petitioner was arrested in the last<br \/>\nadverse case as well as in the ground crime on the same day and  produced  for<br \/>\nremand on  the same day in both crimes.  While so, the detaining authority had<br \/>\narrived t his subjective satisfaction on compelling necessity, only in respect<br \/>\nof the ground crime and not in respect of last adverse crime,  and  hence  the<br \/>\nsubjective satisfaction arrived at must be held to be vitiated.  We are unable<br \/>\nto  agree  for,  in  the ground crime a more serious offence has been alleged,<br \/>\nwhich is punishable with imprisonment  for  life,  especially  when  hurt  was<br \/>\ncaused to  policemen  in the course of the same transaction.  An offence under<br \/>\nSection 366 I.P.C.  which is the subject matter of the last adverse  crime  is<br \/>\npunishable  with  imprisonment  to  a  maximum  extent  of  ten years rigorous<br \/>\nimprisonment.   We  cannot  overlook  that  last  adverse  crime  also   stood<br \/>\nregistered for  an  offence punishable under Sec.307 IPC also.  The subjective<br \/>\nsatisfaction arrived at relates to the graver crime punishable  under  Sec.307<br \/>\nIPC  and,  on  that  premise,  we are unable to find fault with the subjective<br \/>\nsatisfaction arrived at, on compelling necessity.  This ground is rejected.  &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the  Division  Bench<br \/>\nand  we  hold that the detaining authority has not committed any error and the<br \/>\norder cannot be faulted with on  the  ground  that  he  has  not  specifically<br \/>\nreferred other crime numbers in the order of detention; accordingly, we reject<br \/>\nthe first contention.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.   Coming  to the second contention, learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner vehemently submitted that in spite of the specific request made  to<br \/>\nboth the authorities the petitioner was not furnished with a copy of the order<br \/>\npassed by  the Principal District Judge, Chengalpet.  We verified the document<br \/>\nsupplied to the detenu.  It is not in dispute that the petitioner was supplied<br \/>\nwith the copy of bail petition and  orders  passed  thereon  by  the  Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate, Tambaram.    It is also seen that the petitioner was supplied with<br \/>\nthe copy of bail application in Crl.M.P.No.13951  of  2005  filed  before  the<br \/>\nDistrict Judge,  Chengalpet.    As  said  earlier,  it is the grievance of the<br \/>\npetitioner that the order passed by the District  Court,  Chengalpet  has  not<br \/>\nbeen furnished  to the petitioner.  It is also the grievance of the petitioner<br \/>\nthat in spite of specific request, the Government, instead of  complying  with<br \/>\nher  request,  sent  a  reply  stating  that  the order passed by the Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate, Tambaram had already been furnished.  We  verified  the  documents<br \/>\nsupplied to  the  detenu  as well as reply sent by the Government.  It is true<br \/>\nthat the copy of the order passed by Principal District Court, Chengalpet  has<br \/>\nnot been supplied.  On the other hand, it is not in dispute that bail petition<br \/>\nand order  passed by Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram have been supplied.  In the<br \/>\nabsence of prejudice caused due to non-supply  of  the  order  passed  by  the<br \/>\nPrincipal  District  Judge,  Chengalpet, we are of the view that the detention<br \/>\norder cannot be interfered with.  On the other hand, it is not in dispute that<br \/>\nthe detenu and  her  mother  made  representations  and  the  same  were  duly<br \/>\nconsidered and  rejected.    Accordingly,  we  are unable to accept the second<br \/>\ncontention also.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.   Coming  to  the  third  contention,   we   verified   the<br \/>\nrepresentation  of  the  mother of the detenu, seeking clean copies of certain<br \/>\npages in the paper book supplied to the  detenu  and  clean  copies  of  those<br \/>\ndocuments were  also  supplied  to  the  detenu.    It is the grievance of the<br \/>\npetitioner that those were supplied after the enquiry by the  Advisory  Board.<br \/>\nIn this regard, we verified the representation made by mother of the detenu as<br \/>\nwell  as  the  details regarding the documents sought for by her and the reply<br \/>\nsent by the Government.  Even according to the Government, though  the  copies<br \/>\nwere  legible  and  readable,  the  detaining authority was directed to supply<br \/>\nclean copies.  In such circumstances, we are of the view that  the  petitioner<br \/>\nis in no way prejudiced by the supply of clean copies after the enquiry by the<br \/>\nAdvisory Board.  Accordingly, we reject the said contention also.\n<\/p>\n<p>                In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any error<br \/>\nor infirmity  for interference.  Accordingly, this petition fails and the same<br \/>\nis dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Kh <\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Commissioner of Police<br \/>\nGreater Chennai<br \/>\nEgmore, Chennai 600 008.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Secretary to the<br \/>\nGovernment of Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nProhibition &amp; Excise Department<br \/>\nFort St.  George<br \/>\nChennai 600 009.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Mrs. Muniammal vs The Commissioner Of Police on 13 June, 2006 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 13\/06\/2006 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM and The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice V. DHANAPALAN Habeas Corpus Petition No.139 of 2006 Mrs. Muniammal .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Commissioner of Police Greater [&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-201758","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>Mrs. Muniammal vs The Commissioner Of Police on 13 June, 2006 - 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\/mrs-muniammal-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-13-june-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mrs. Muniammal vs The Commissioner Of Police on 13 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-muniammal-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-13-june-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-06-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-19T06:31:53+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-muniammal-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-13-june-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-muniammal-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-13-june-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mrs. Muniammal vs The Commissioner Of Police on 13 June, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-06-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-19T06:31:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-muniammal-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-13-june-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1567,\"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\\\/mrs-muniammal-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-13-june-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-muniammal-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-13-june-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-muniammal-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-13-june-2006\",\"name\":\"Mrs. Muniammal vs The Commissioner Of Police on 13 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-06-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-19T06:31:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-muniammal-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-13-june-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-muniammal-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-13-june-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-muniammal-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-13-june-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mrs. Muniammal vs The Commissioner Of Police on 13 June, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Mrs. Muniammal vs The Commissioner Of Police on 13 June, 2006 - 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\/mrs-muniammal-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-13-june-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mrs. Muniammal vs The Commissioner Of Police on 13 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-muniammal-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-13-june-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-06-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-19T06:31:53+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-muniammal-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-13-june-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-muniammal-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-13-june-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mrs. Muniammal vs The Commissioner Of Police on 13 June, 2006","datePublished":"2006-06-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-19T06:31:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-muniammal-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-13-june-2006"},"wordCount":1567,"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\/mrs-muniammal-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-13-june-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-muniammal-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-13-june-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-muniammal-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-13-june-2006","name":"Mrs. Muniammal vs The Commissioner Of Police on 13 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-06-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-19T06:31:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-muniammal-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-13-june-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-muniammal-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-13-june-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-muniammal-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-13-june-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mrs. Muniammal vs The Commissioner Of Police on 13 June, 2006"}]},{"@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\/201758","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=201758"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201758\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201758"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201758"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201758"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}