{"id":219814,"date":"2010-02-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naveen-vs-state-anr-on-5-february-2010"},"modified":"2018-09-26T13:02:50","modified_gmt":"2018-09-26T07:32:50","slug":"naveen-vs-state-anr-on-5-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naveen-vs-state-anr-on-5-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Naveen vs State & Anr on 5 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Naveen vs State & Anr on 5 February, 2010<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/pre>\n
                                         1<\/span><\/p>\n
              S.B.CR. MISC. PETITION NO.1359\/2008<\/p>\n
                              Naveen
\n                                v.\n<\/p>\n
                     State of Rajasthan & Anr.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        Date of Order               ::         5th February, 2010<\/p>\n
               HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR<\/p>\n
Mr. ML Khatri, for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. MA Bhurat, PP, for the State.\n<\/p>\n
                                     ….\n<\/p>\n
              This     misc.   petition            as    per    provisions     of<\/p>\n
Section 482 Cr.P.C. pertains to a criminal complaint<\/p>\n
preferred       under       Section          138        of     the    Negotiable<\/p>\n
Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “the<\/p>\n
Act     of    1881”)       regarding         dishonour          of    cheque    of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,85,000\/- issued           and       signed by           one     Shri   Ramesh<\/p>\n
Kumar    in    the    capacity       of      Proprietor,           Madhur    Milan<\/p>\n
Enterprises.         The    Chief    Judicial            Magistrate,        Barmer<\/p>\n
under an order dated 5.6.2006 took cognizance of the<\/p>\n
complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of<\/p>\n
the Act of 1881 and a revision petition challenging<\/p>\n
the order aforesaid came to be rejected by learned<\/p>\n
Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra vide<\/p>\n
order dated 27.6.2008.\n<\/p>\n
                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
           The contention of counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
is that the courts below materially erred while not<\/p>\n
appreciating     the     fact   that     no    liability      upon    the<\/p>\n
present petitioner could have been fastened as he is<\/p>\n
nothing to do either with Madhur Milan Enterprises or<\/p>\n
with Ramesh Kumar who tendered the cheque concerned.<\/p>\n
It is emphasised that there is nothing on record on<\/p>\n
basis of which the petitioner could have been even<\/p>\n
remotely connected with the proceedings under Section<\/p>\n
138 of the Act of 1881.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           Despite        service,       nobody       has     put      in\n\nappearance    to     contest    this     petition     on     behalf    of\n\ncomplainant    Naresh     Kumar    son    of    Shankar      Lal.    This\n\nCourt by     order     dated 7.1.2009         while   admitting this\n\n<\/pre>\n
petition for hearing called for the record, thus, the<\/p>\n
same is available for examination.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           The       Chief       Judicial        Magistrate          took<\/p>\n
cognizance against the present petitioner on the count<\/p>\n
that in the complaint it is stated that “accused are<\/p>\n
partners of firm Madhur Milan Enterprises”. Learned<\/p>\n
Additional Sessions Judge while rejecting the revision<\/p>\n
petition preferred        by    the petitioner        held    that the<\/p>\n
issue as to who are partners of the firm Madhur Milan<\/p>\n
Enterprises      could    be    examined       only   after    leading<\/p>\n
evidence and, therefore, at this stage nothing wrong<\/p>\n
was done by the trial court while taking cognizance
\n                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
under the order dated 5.6.2006 against the petitioner<\/p>\n
too.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               On    examination      of       entire       record,        I   found<\/p>\n
that the cheque was signed by Shri Ramesh Kumar in the<\/p>\n
capacity       as     Proprietor      of       the        firm     Madhur      Milan<\/p>\n
Enterprises.         In    the   first        notice,        the        complainant<\/p>\n
nowhere mentioned that the petitioner is a partner of<\/p>\n
the firm Madhur Milan Enterprises. In the cause title<\/p>\n
of the complaint also accused No.1 Ramesh Kumar is<\/p>\n
shown     as        Proprietor      of        the     firm        Madhur       Milan<\/p>\n
Enterprises, but           nothing       is    said       about     the     present<\/p>\n
petitioner. It is only in body of the complaint it is<\/p>\n
stated that “accused are partners of the firm Madhur<\/p>\n
Milan Enterprises”.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               Section     141   of      the        Act    of     1881    provides<\/p>\n
certain    offences         by   companies            and        such    companies<\/p>\n
includes a firm or other association of individuals.<\/p>\n
As per Section 141 of the Act of 1881, if the person<\/p>\n
committing an offence under section 138 is a company,<\/p>\n
every person who, at the time offence was committed,<\/p>\n
was in charge of, and was responsible to the company<\/p>\n
for the conduct of the business of the company, as<\/p>\n
well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of<\/p>\n
the    offence       and    shall     be      liable        to     be    proceeded<\/p>\n
against and punished accordingly. Sub-section (2) of<\/p>\n
Section 141 provides that where any offence under the<\/p>\n
Act of 1881 has been committed by a company and it is
\n                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
proved that the offence has been committed with the<\/p>\n
consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any<\/p>\n
neglect       on     the        part    of,    any        director,     manager,<\/p>\n
secretary       or      other        officer     of       the   company,       such<\/p>\n
director, manager, secretary or other officer shall<\/p>\n
also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall<\/p>\n
be     liable      to      be     proceeded         against     and     punished<\/p>\n
accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               In view of the provisions aforesaid, it is<\/p>\n
apparent that if a cheque i.e. dishonoured, is issued<\/p>\n
on behalf of a company including a firm, the person<\/p>\n
who was in charge of the company and responsible to<\/p>\n
the company for the conduct of the business, shall<\/p>\n
liable to be proceeded against and shall be deemed to<\/p>\n
be guilty of the offence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               Hon’ble Supreme Court in Monaben Ketanbhai<\/p>\n
Shah    and     another         v.     State   of     Gujarat     and    others,<\/p>\n
reported in AIR 2004 SC 4274, while dealing with the<\/p>\n
scope of the provisions of Section 141 of the Act of<\/p>\n
1881     for       proceeding          against        a    person,      held     as<\/p>\n
follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               “It is evident that in the complaint there
\n               are no averments against the appellants
\n               except stating in the title that they are
\n               partners of the firm. Learned counsel for the
\n               respondents\/complainant contended that a copy
\n               of the partnership deed was also filed which
\n                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
          would show that the appellants were active in
\n          the business. No such document was filed with
\n          the complaint or made part thereof. The
\n          filing of the partnership deed later is of no
\n          consequence for determining the point in
\n          issue. Section 141 does not make all partners
\n          liable    for  the   offence.    The   Criminal
\n          liability has been fastened on those who, at
\n          the time of the commission of the offence,
\n          was in-charge of and was responsible to the
\n          firm for the conduct of the business of the
\n          firm. These may be sleeping partners who are
\n          not required to take any part in the business
\n          of the firm; they may be ladies and others
\n          who may not know anything about the business
\n          of the firm. The primary responsibility is on
\n          the complainant to make necessary averments
\n          in the complaint so as to make the accused
\n          vicariously   liable.    For   fastening    the
\n          criminal liability, there is no presumption
\n          that    every   partner    knows    about   the
\n          transaction. The obligation of the appellants
\n          to prove that at the time the offence was
\n          committed they were not in-charge of and were
\n          not responsible to the firm for the conduct
\n          of the business of the firm, would arise only
\n          when first the complainant makes necessary
\n          averments in the complaint and establishes
\n          that fact. The present case is of total
\n          absence    of requisite    averments    in  the
\n          complaint.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          In the instant matter, as stated earlier, the<\/p>\n
cheque   concerned   was   signed   by   Ramesh   Kumar   as<\/p>\n
Proprietor of the firm Madhur Milan Enterprises and in<\/p>\n
the notice the complainant nowhere stated as to how<\/p>\n
the present petitioner is concerned with the cheque
\n                                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
that was dishonoured or with the business relating to<\/p>\n
which the cheque was tendered. In the complaint also a<\/p>\n
bald averment is made that the accused are partners of<\/p>\n
the firm Madhur Milan Enterprises but nothing is said<\/p>\n
about the responsibility and liability of the present<\/p>\n
petitioner who is coming forward with the case that he<\/p>\n
is not at all a partner of the firm.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             True it is, that for taking cognizance only<\/p>\n
the    averments         in    the    complaint          are    required     to    be<\/p>\n
examined and not the defence advanced at preliminary<\/p>\n
stage,    but    section            141    of     the    Act     of   1881      while<\/p>\n
fastening       a        vicarious              liability       on    directors,<\/p>\n
secretaries and other executives of a company, also<\/p>\n
protects the persons who are not in charge of and were<\/p>\n
not responsible to the company for the conduct of the<\/p>\n
business of the company, to be proceeded under Section<\/p>\n
138.    In   view        of     the       provisions         aforesaid     it     was<\/p>\n
necessary       for      the        complainant         to     mention     in     the<\/p>\n
complaint that such a person was in charge or was<\/p>\n
responsible         to        the     company       for        conduct     of     its<\/p>\n
business. No such averment exists in the complaint in<\/p>\n
question. It is nowhere stated that how the present<\/p>\n
petitioner,      in       any       manner,       connected       with     “Madhur<\/p>\n
Milan    Enterprises”               and     also        that     he   is     having<\/p>\n
responsibility relating to that firm. A very vague and<\/p>\n
bald averment is made foundation to proceed against<\/p>\n
the petitioner, that is not at all permissible in view<\/p>\n
of the checks provided under Section 141 of the Act of
\n                                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
1881. As such, I am of the opinion that the trial<\/p>\n
court     erred       while         taking          cognizance            against         the<\/p>\n
present petitioner under the order impugned.<\/p>\n
             Before parting with the case, it would also<\/p>\n
be    appropriate         to     examine           the     objection         raised        by<\/p>\n
learned       Public           Prosecutor                regarding          scope          of<\/p>\n
interference         by    Court         in       the    present          matter       while<\/p>\n
exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court<\/p>\n
is     conscious          about      its          inherent          powers        as      per<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., which are required<\/p>\n
to      be      exercised            very           stringently             and          with<\/p>\n
circumspection. True it is, that the Court exercising<\/p>\n
inherent powers is not justified in embarking upon an<\/p>\n
inquiry      as      to    the      reliability               or     genuineness          or<\/p>\n
otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint and<\/p>\n
also     that     the      inherent               powers      do     not     confer         a<\/p>\n
jurisdiction         on     the      Court          to     act       with        whims     or<\/p>\n
caprice. However, at the same time, the Court must<\/p>\n
exercise its inherent powers on being satisfied that<\/p>\n
even on simple reading of complaint no case as alleged<\/p>\n
is made out against the person sought to be tried.<\/p>\n
Such person should not be permitted to be dragged into<\/p>\n
an unwarranted litigation. Mere a vague assertion in<\/p>\n
complaint, without satisfying statutory requirement as<\/p>\n
per     Section      141       of    the          Act    of        1881     is     such     a<\/p>\n
circumstance,         where         Court         should      not     keep        off     its<\/p>\n
authority       to    rescue         a    person          from       an     unwarranted<\/p>\n
prosecution launched.\n<\/p>\n
                                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
            For   the   reasons          stated    above,     this   misc.<\/p>\n
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves acceptance<\/p>\n
and,   therefore,       the    same       is      allowed.    The    order<\/p>\n
impugned    dated     5.6.2006       passed        by     Chief   Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate, Barmer in Cr. Complaint No.224\/2006, is<\/p>\n
quashed    to   the   extent    it       relates     to    summoning   the<\/p>\n
present petitioner after taking cognizance against him<\/p>\n
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,<\/p>\n
1881. Accordingly, the order passed by the revisional<\/p>\n
authority too stands quashed. The original record of<\/p>\n
the trial court as well as of the revisional court be<\/p>\n
remitted to the courts concerned forthwith.<\/p>\n
                                                  ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.\n<\/p>\n
kkm\/ps.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Naveen vs State & Anr on 5 February, 2010 1 S.B.CR. MISC. PETITION NO.1359\/2008 Naveen v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order :: 5th February, 2010 HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. ML Khatri, for the petitioner. Mr. MA Bhurat, PP, for the State. …. This misc. petition as […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-219814","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nNaveen vs State & Anr on 5 February, 2010 - 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\/naveen-vs-state-anr-on-5-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Naveen vs State & Anr on 5 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naveen-vs-state-anr-on-5-february-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-26T07:32:50+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\/naveen-vs-state-anr-on-5-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naveen-vs-state-anr-on-5-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Naveen vs State & Anr on 5 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-26T07:32:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naveen-vs-state-anr-on-5-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1594,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naveen-vs-state-anr-on-5-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naveen-vs-state-anr-on-5-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naveen-vs-state-anr-on-5-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Naveen vs State & Anr on 5 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-26T07:32:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naveen-vs-state-anr-on-5-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naveen-vs-state-anr-on-5-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naveen-vs-state-anr-on-5-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Naveen vs State & Anr on 5 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Naveen vs State & Anr on 5 February, 2010 - 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\/naveen-vs-state-anr-on-5-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Naveen vs State & Anr on 5 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naveen-vs-state-anr-on-5-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-26T07:32:50+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\/naveen-vs-state-anr-on-5-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naveen-vs-state-anr-on-5-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Naveen vs State & Anr on 5 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-26T07:32:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naveen-vs-state-anr-on-5-february-2010"},"wordCount":1594,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naveen-vs-state-anr-on-5-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naveen-vs-state-anr-on-5-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naveen-vs-state-anr-on-5-february-2010","name":"Naveen vs State & Anr on 5 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-26T07:32:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naveen-vs-state-anr-on-5-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naveen-vs-state-anr-on-5-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naveen-vs-state-anr-on-5-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Naveen vs State & Anr on 5 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/219814","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=219814"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219814\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219814"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219814"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219814"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}