{"id":218373,"date":"2007-10-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-ramesh-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-1-october-2007"},"modified":"2014-08-20T05:06:58","modified_gmt":"2014-08-19T23:36:58","slug":"k-k-ramesh-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-1-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-ramesh-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-1-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"K.K.Ramesh vs The State Represented By on 1 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K.K.Ramesh vs The State Represented By on 1 October, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 01\/10\/2007\n\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\n\nCrl.O.P.(MD).No.10194 of 2007,\nCrl.O.P.(MD).No.9735 of 2007\nand\nM.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2007\n\n\nK.K.Ramesh\t\t\t\t... \tPetitioner in\n\t\t\t\t\t\tboth the petitions\n\nVs\n\n\nThe State represented by\nThe Inspector of Police,\nC.B.C.I.D,\nMadurai City.\t\t\t\t... \tRespondent in\n\t\t\t\t\t\tboth the petitions\n\n\nPrayer in Crl.O.P(MD)No.10194 of 2007: Petition filed under Section 482 of the\nCode of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the order\ndated 05.09.2007 passed in Cr.R.P.No.44 of 2007 on the file of the learned\nPrincipal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, confirming the order dated\n22.05.2007 passed in Cr.M.P.No.5802 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial\nMagistrate No.I, Madurai and set aside the same.\n\n\nPrayer in Crl.O.P(MD)No.9735 of 2007: Petition filed under Section 482 of the\nCode of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the order\ndated 05.09.2007 passed in Cr.R.P.No.45 of 2007 on the file of the learned\nPrincipal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, confirming the order dated\n22.05.2007 passed in Cr.M.P.No.5282 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial\nMagistrate No.I, Madurai and set aside the same.\n\n\n!For Petitioner \t...\tMr.R.Ramachandran\n\n\n^For Respondents\t...\tMr.Siva.Ayyappan\n\t\t\t\tGovernment Advocate (Crl. Side)\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tCrl.O.P(MD)No.10194 of 2007 is focussed to call for the records pertaining<br \/>\nto the order dated 05.09.2007 passed in Cr.R.P.No.44 of 2007 on the file of the<br \/>\nlearned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, confirming the order<br \/>\ndated 22.05.2007 passed in Cr.M.P.No.5802 of 2006 on the file of the learned<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and set aside the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. Crl.O.P(MD)No.9735 of 2007 is focussed to call for the records<br \/>\npertaining to the order dated 05.09.2007 passed in Cr.R.P.No.45 of 2007 on the<br \/>\nfile of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, confirming<br \/>\nthe order dated 22.05.2007 passed in Cr.M.P.No.5282 of 2006 on the file of the<br \/>\nlearned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and set aside the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. A re&#8217;sume&#8217; of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal<br \/>\nof these petitions would run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tInitially, the police registered the case in Cr.No.833 of 2003 under<br \/>\nSections 341, 323, 354 and 506(2) I.P.C.  Subsequently, it appears, at the<br \/>\ninstance of the accused, who is the petitioner herein, the learned Sessions<br \/>\nJudge directed investigation into the crime by C.B.C.I.D which  after<br \/>\ninvestigation, laid the police report as against the accused for the offence<br \/>\npunishable under Sections 341, 324, 354, 506(1), 420, 468, 471 I.P.C and Section<br \/>\n4 of Women Harassment (Prohibition) Act.  Thereupon, the learned Magistrate took<br \/>\nit on file as C.C.No.236 of 2005.  Whereupon, the petitioner filed<br \/>\nCr.M.P.No.5282 of 2006 for discharge.  However, the learned Magistrate dismissed<br \/>\nthe petition and framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 341,<br \/>\n324, 354, 506(1), 420, 468, 471 I.P.C and Section 4 of Women Harassment<br \/>\n(Prohibition) Act.  It also appears, one other Cr.M.P.No.5802 of 2006 was filed<br \/>\nunder Section 91 Cr.P.C even before framing of charge for summoning certain<br \/>\ndocuments and that was also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, those orders, the petitioner<br \/>\nfiled these two Criminal Original Petitions, so to say, one as against the order<br \/>\nof dismissal of the discharge petition and another as against the dismissal of<br \/>\nthe petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C, on the  main grounds inter alia thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe trial Court without considering the factual as well as the legal<br \/>\nissues, passed orders dismissing the petition.  The trial Court also failed to<br \/>\nconsider the enmity of the defacto complainant as against the petitioner and<br \/>\nalso the ill-will of the police towards him. It is also the grievance of the<br \/>\npetitioner that he being a social welfare worker and Human Rights activist, the<br \/>\npolice with the help of Vatchala, the defacto complainant, engineered this false<br \/>\ncase; and that without considering the hand-writing expert&#8217;s opinion, which is<br \/>\nin favour of the accused, the Court has gone to the extent of framing charges<br \/>\nfor the offence of forgery also.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the grounds as<br \/>\nfound set out supra.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would counter such<br \/>\narguments that all the allegations\/grounds set out by the petitioner could be<br \/>\nconsidered only at the time of trial and this Court while exercising the power<br \/>\nunder Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot look into all these aspects.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. At the outset itself, I would like to observe that this Court while<br \/>\nexercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot ponder over the factual<br \/>\nissues based on bare allegations.  However, if there are issues based on pure<br \/>\nlegal question of law involved, certainly it would be looked into.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. The nitty-gritty, the gist and kernel of the complaint of the defacto<br \/>\ncomplainant, Vatchala is to the effect that the petitioner herein used to move<br \/>\nwith the defacto complainant as family friend and well-wisher;  he taking undue<br \/>\nadvantage of such close relationship, intended to grab the money from them and<br \/>\nunder the pretext of hushing up the complaints as against Vatchala and her<br \/>\nfamily, he obtained amounts as &#8216;hush money&#8217; payable to the police and other<br \/>\nauthorities; as such, the petitioner cheated her  to the tune of Rs.10,000\/-<br \/>\n(Rupees ten thousand only) and the petitioner also obtained Rs.2,000\/- (Rupees<br \/>\ntwo thousand only) from her under the pretext of making arrangements for her to<br \/>\npurchase a land etc.  According to the police, through one Sangili, the<br \/>\npetitioner on one occasion, gave an alleged police summon addressed to Vatchala<br \/>\nas though the police wants her to appear in connection with some petition<br \/>\nforwarded to the police from the Chief Minister&#8217;s Cell;  however, that alleged<br \/>\npolice summons was sent to the hand-writing experts, for opinion and they<br \/>\narrived at the conclusion that they cannot give a conclusive opinion that the<br \/>\nimpugned signature or hand-writing, is that of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. Placing reliance on such opinion of experts, the learned Counsel for<br \/>\nthe petitioner would strongly argue and convincingly too that in view of such<br \/>\nhand-writing expert&#8217;s opinion, the framing of charge under Section 468 I.P.C is<br \/>\ntotally untenable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would advance his<br \/>\nargument to the effect that only during trial alone, all these factual<br \/>\nintricacies could be decided and not at this stage.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. I am of the considered opinion that once the hand-writing expert&#8217;s<br \/>\nopinion is in favour of the accused and it is not raising the accusative finger<br \/>\nas against the accused, certainly the learned Magistrate was not justified in<br \/>\nframing charge for the offence of forgery as against the accused and<br \/>\naccordingly, the charge under Section 468 I.P.C has to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. Relating to the charge under Section 420 I.P.C, the learned Counsel<br \/>\nfor the petitioner would vehemently argue that merely based on statement of the<br \/>\ndefacto complainant, the charge under Section 420 I.P.C should not have been<br \/>\nframed.  Relating to this objection is concerned, I would observe that simply<br \/>\nbecause, it is based on oral evidence, this Court cannot interfere while<br \/>\nexercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.  To believe the defacto<br \/>\ncomplainant or not, is a question of fact and after due cross-examination alone,<br \/>\nthe trial Court would be able to come to a conclusion.  In the F.I.R, the<br \/>\ndefacto complainant narrated about the alleged cheating committed by the accused<br \/>\nand in such a case, this Court cannot quash those charges.  The charge relating<br \/>\nto causing hurt etc, the police relies on the accident register and a copy of it<br \/>\nwould show that she sustained simple injuries and it is also a matter of<br \/>\nevidence which should be considered by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. The other offences of criminal intimidation, outraging modesty and<br \/>\nharassment to women, are all based on oral evidence and this Court cannot<br \/>\ninterfere with it.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. With the above observation, Crl.O.P(MD)No.10194 of 2007 is partly<br \/>\nallowed, setting aside the charge under Section 468 I.P.C only.  Relating to<br \/>\nother charges framed, it is for the trial Court to proceed with the trial as<br \/>\nagainst the accused as per law.  Consequently, connected M.P(MD)No.1 of 2007 is<br \/>\nclosed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. Relating to Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9735 of 2007, I am of the considered<br \/>\nopinion that the petitioner was not justified in filing that application even<br \/>\nbefore framing of charges.  At that stage, it is was the duty of the prosecution<br \/>\nto place the records and it was not the duty of the accused to place the<br \/>\nevidence to prove his innocence.  The learned Magistrate also in his order, gave<br \/>\na finding that no reason at all was found stated in the petition.  However,<br \/>\nwhile arguing the case before this Court, the learned Counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\nwould submit that for the purpose of proving that P.W.1 is not a witness of<br \/>\ntruth and that she already committed misdeeds, he wanted those documents to be<br \/>\nsummoned.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17. It is a trite proposition of law that at the time of trial, the<br \/>\naccused should be given due opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, for<br \/>\nwhich the documents required by the petitioner\/accused should be made available<br \/>\nbefore the Court and then only, during cross-examination, the prosecution<br \/>\nwitness could be confronted with those documents.  Without sticking on to<br \/>\ntechnicalities, the accused should certainly be given  an  opportunity  to  get<br \/>\nsummoned the relevant documents provided those documents are having connection<br \/>\nwith the witness.  Accordingly, the trial Judge shall see to it whether those<br \/>\ndocuments are in any way connected with the prosecution witness.   If  that  be<br \/>\nso, without any further probe, let summons be issued to the persons concerned to<br \/>\nproduce the documents before commencement of the trial itself, so that the<br \/>\naccused would have the opportunity of cross-examining the witness with reference<br \/>\nto those documents.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18. With the above observation, Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9735 of 2007 is disposed<br \/>\nof.  Consequently, connected M.P(MD)No.1 of 2007 is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>rsb\t<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Inspector of Police,<br \/>\n  C.B.C.I.D,<br \/>\n  Madurai City.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The  Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.The Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,<br \/>\n  Madurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court K.K.Ramesh vs The State Represented By on 1 October, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01\/10\/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10194 of 2007, Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9735 of 2007 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 K.K.Ramesh &#8230; Petitioner in both the petitions Vs The State represented by The Inspector [&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-218373","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>K.K.Ramesh vs The State Represented By on 1 October, 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\/k-k-ramesh-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-1-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.K.Ramesh vs The State Represented By on 1 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-ramesh-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-1-october-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=\"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-08-19T23:36:58+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\\\/k-k-ramesh-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-1-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-ramesh-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-1-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.K.Ramesh vs The State Represented By on 1 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-19T23:36:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-ramesh-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-1-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1506,\"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\\\/k-k-ramesh-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-1-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-ramesh-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-1-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-ramesh-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-1-october-2007\",\"name\":\"K.K.Ramesh vs The State Represented By on 1 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-19T23:36:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-ramesh-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-1-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-ramesh-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-1-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-ramesh-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-1-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.K.Ramesh vs The State Represented By on 1 October, 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":"K.K.Ramesh vs The State Represented By on 1 October, 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\/k-k-ramesh-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-1-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.K.Ramesh vs The State Represented By on 1 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-ramesh-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-1-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-08-19T23:36:58+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\/k-k-ramesh-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-1-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-ramesh-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-1-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.K.Ramesh vs The State Represented By on 1 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-19T23:36:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-ramesh-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-1-october-2007"},"wordCount":1506,"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\/k-k-ramesh-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-1-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-ramesh-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-1-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-ramesh-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-1-october-2007","name":"K.K.Ramesh vs The State Represented By on 1 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-19T23:36:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-ramesh-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-1-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-ramesh-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-1-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-ramesh-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-1-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.K.Ramesh vs The State Represented By on 1 October, 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\/218373","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=218373"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218373\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218373"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218373"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218373"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}