{"id":221757,"date":"2009-01-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-anju-vohra-vs-ritin-nagpal-on-2-january-2009"},"modified":"2015-05-10T23:55:15","modified_gmt":"2015-05-10T18:25:15","slug":"smt-anju-vohra-vs-ritin-nagpal-on-2-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-anju-vohra-vs-ritin-nagpal-on-2-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Anju Vohra vs Ritin Nagpal on 2 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jammu High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Smt. Anju Vohra vs Ritin Nagpal on 2 January, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n \n HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU.            \n561-A Cr P C No. 38 OF 2007  \nSmt. Anju Vohra \nPetitioners\nRitin Nagpal\nRespondent  \n!Mr. Virender Bhat, Advocate\n^Mr. P. S. Chandel, Advocate\n\nHonble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge\nDate: 02.01.2009 \n:J U D G M E N T: \n<\/pre>\n<p>Through the instant petition, petitioner- Smt. Anju Vohra is<br \/>\nseeking quashing of a complaint (Annexure-A) filed by the<br \/>\nrespondent\/ complainant, Ritin Nagpal, under Sections 405, 406,<br \/>\n420, 504 &amp; 506 Ranbir Penal Code, the order (Annexure-D) vide<br \/>\nwhich a process has been issued against her to face the trial for the<br \/>\noffences punishable under Sections 420, 504 &amp; 506 RPC and all<br \/>\nthe consequential proceedings arisen therefrom.<br \/>\nPursuant to notice, Mr. P. S. Chandel, Advocate, has<br \/>\nappeared for the respondent. Trial Court record has also been<br \/>\nreceived. However, Mr. Chandel does not intend to file any reply\/<br \/>\nobjections to the main petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused<br \/>\nthe record.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Bhat submits that if one goes by the allegations as<br \/>\ncontained in the complaint (Annexure-A) no offence of Section 420<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">2<\/span><br \/>\nRPC is prima facie attracted as it is a case of pure and simple civil<br \/>\ntransaction between the parties. According to learned counsel, it is<br \/>\nalleged in the complaint that the petitioner was short of funds in<br \/>\ncompleting the construction of her Banquet Hall and for which she<br \/>\napproached the respondent for financial help with a proposal that<br \/>\nKhana Khazana a firm being run by respondent would enjoy<br \/>\nexclusive catering of the functions to be held in the said Hall after<br \/>\nits completion and in this regard a settlement was arrived at<br \/>\nbetween the parties in which the respondent had to pay an amount<br \/>\nof Rs.7 lacs to the petitioner as refundable security. The learned<br \/>\ncounsel then contends that the respondent had paid an amount of<br \/>\nRs.7 lacs to the petitioner through a cheque. His grievance is that<br \/>\nthe petitioner did not allow him to do the catering exclusively for<br \/>\nthe functions and also did not give any share in the profits of the<br \/>\nBanquet Hall operations as per the settled terms.<br \/>\nMr. Bhat contends that all these facts reflect that the<br \/>\nrespondent had become the partner with the petitioner and, if at<br \/>\nall, some dispute has arisen between them, it could be determined<br \/>\nby the civil Court and not by the criminal Court. The extent of<br \/>\nshare of either side can be taken care of by the civil Court only.<br \/>\nTherefore, prima facie, there cannot be any element of cheating at<br \/>\nall in the present transaction. At the same time, even if the<br \/>\nrespondent was not given the right of catering exclusively as per<br \/>\nterms and conditions, it again would attract a civil dispute and<br \/>\nthere is no tinge of criminality in it. On the basis of the aforesaid<br \/>\nsubmissions, Mr. Bhat submits that issuance of process against<br \/>\nthe petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 RPC is,<br \/>\nthus a sheer abuse of process of the Court.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>With regard to Sections 504 &amp; 506 RPC, the other two<br \/>\noffences for which the process is also issued against the petitioner,<br \/>\ncontention of Mr. Bhat is that bare perusal of compliant does not<br \/>\nmake out a case falling within the mischief of these offences. What<br \/>\nare the derogatory remarks are missing in the complaint and,<br \/>\ntherefore, nothing is insulting. Even otherwise, the complainant in<br \/>\nhis preliminary evidence does not say a word attracting these two<br \/>\nSections. Therefore, summoning order for these offences is again<br \/>\nbad to that extent also.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Bhat lastly submits that no doubt the present complaint<br \/>\nis filed for Sections 405 &amp; 406 RPC also alongwith the aforesaid<br \/>\nthree offences and the petitioner can be summoned for the said<br \/>\noffences, if prima facie, the present case attracts those offences,<br \/>\nbut from the complainant itself or from the preliminary evidence<br \/>\nproduced by the respondent, even these two offences are also not<br \/>\nmade out and, therefore, even by stretching the present complaint<br \/>\nvis-`-vis these two offences, no process can be issued. Otherwise<br \/>\nalso, the learned trial Court itself did not find any material<br \/>\navailable for the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Bhat, thus, prays for quashing of the complaint, the<br \/>\nsummoning order and all other proceedings arisen therefrom by<br \/>\ninvoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.<br \/>\nMr. Chandel, while refuting the submissions advanced by<br \/>\nMr. Bhat, submits that the respondent had not become the partner<br \/>\nof the firm as yet and, therefore, there cannot be any question of<br \/>\ncivil dispute in this case. According to him, the petitioner had the<br \/>\nbad intention in her bosom right from the very outset when she<br \/>\nhad asked for the money from the complainant for the purpose of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">4<\/span><br \/>\nconstruction of Banquet Hall to which the respondent agreed, but<br \/>\non its completion she backed out. This all, prima facie, brings the<br \/>\npresent case within the mischief of cheating. Handing over of Rs.7<br \/>\nlacs by the respondent to the petitioner is an off shoot of that act<br \/>\nonly and therefore simply that the said amount was handed over to<br \/>\nthe petitioner by a cheque by the respondent does not go to say<br \/>\nthat the firm was established and a civil dispute has arisen<br \/>\nbetween the parties. Therefore, the element of cheating, prima<br \/>\nfacie, is made out on record and the process has been rightly<br \/>\nissued against her to face trial for the offence punishable under<br \/>\nSection 420 RPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>So far as the other two offences viz., 504 &amp; 506 RPC are<br \/>\nconcerned, Mr. Chandel has half heartedly argued that these<br \/>\noffences are, prima facie, attracted atleast for the purpose of<br \/>\nissuing of process as it is not the stage to deeply appreciate the<br \/>\ncase of the complainant which he has yet to prove to the hilt by<br \/>\nproducing the entire evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Chandel lastly submits that assuming for the sake of<br \/>\nargument although not admitted, if this Court finds that the<br \/>\nsummoning order impugned herein is bad with regard to Sections<br \/>\n420, 505 &amp; 506 RPC, the ingredients of Sections 405 &amp; 406 RPC<br \/>\nare, prima facie, complete and, therefore, the petitioner may be<br \/>\nordered to be summoned for these two offences atleast. To<br \/>\nstrengthen his arguments on this aspect, he relies upon two<br \/>\njudgment of Apex Court rendered in case <a href=\"\/doc\/573838\/\">Velji Raghavbji Patel v.<br \/>\nThe State of Maharashtra<\/a> AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1433 (V 52<br \/>\nC 235).\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival<br \/>\ncontentions advanced by learned counsel for either side and going<br \/>\nthrough the entire record minutely, I am of the view that the<br \/>\npetitioner has a cause to pray for the relief sought herein.<br \/>\nThere is no doubt that at this stage meticulous examination<br \/>\nof evidence of the complainant is not legally required, but at the<br \/>\nsame time, if the complaint and the preliminary evidence led by the<br \/>\ncomplainant in support of his case, no offence as alleged is prima<br \/>\nfacie made out, the Court is left with no option but to quash the<br \/>\nproceedings. After all issuance of process curtails the liberty of a<br \/>\nperson and this right is not to be infringed just in a casual manner.<br \/>\nFacing a trial as an accused has its far reaching effect.<br \/>\nEntirety of the present case leaves no room of doubt in my<br \/>\nmind to observe that prima facie no offence whatsoever as<br \/>\nprojected or alleged in the main complaint or even in the<br \/>\npreliminary evidence is made out qua the petitioner. The grievance<br \/>\nof the respondent is that he is not getting his due share after<br \/>\nentering into an agreement with the petitioner even after investing<br \/>\na good amount from his side for the construction of the<br \/>\nBanquet Hall. It is his categoric case that after the completion of<br \/>\nthe construction, the operation of the Banquet Hall was to be run<br \/>\nby the respondent for the purpose of catering in that some share<br \/>\nhad to go to the petitioner. What was the share is not known to<br \/>\nthe Court. The said contract has not been acted upon by the<br \/>\npetitioner. This simplicitor attracts a civil dispute and it appears<br \/>\nthat under the garb of present complaint, the respondent wants to<br \/>\nsettle his score, which cannot be legally allowed. Partnership can<br \/>\nbe oral or in writing and, therefore, I am not in agreement with Mr.<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">6<\/span><br \/>\nChandel that the firm was yet to be formed. In the present case, as<br \/>\nper the settlement arrived at, the domain was to be transferred for<br \/>\nthe purpose of running the business. It does not attract the<br \/>\noffence of Section 420 RPC at all for which the petitioner stands<br \/>\nsummoned.\n<\/p>\n<p>I have examined the present case vis-`-vis Sections 405 &amp;<br \/>\n406 RPC also. It had become a joint property as is clear from the<br \/>\naverments and in such a situation there could be any entrustment<br \/>\nin this case so as to bring it even remotely for the purpose of<br \/>\nattracting Sections 405 &amp; 406 RPC. As stated above, it is,<br \/>\notherwise, a case of sharing of profit simply and this is the bone of<br \/>\ncontention. This controversy can be settled by way of filing a civil<br \/>\nsuit before the competent Court, if the respondent so chooses, but<br \/>\nnot through the medium of the instant criminal complaint.<br \/>\nTherefore, in my considered view, neither Section 420 RPC nor<br \/>\nSections 405 &amp; 406 RPC are, prima facie, attracted in this case.<br \/>\nSo far as other offences viz., 504 &amp; 506 are concerned, even<br \/>\nMr. Chandel has joined issue on this aspect half heartedly. I am<br \/>\nalso of the view that these offences are neither attracted from the<br \/>\nallegations as contained in the complaint nor from the preliminary<br \/>\nevidence led by the complainant.\n<\/p>\n<p>To be fair to Mr. Chandel, I may observe here that the<br \/>\njudgment cited and relied upon by him is entirely distinguishable<br \/>\non facts and does not advance his case at all. Rather the present<br \/>\ncase squarely falls within the fore corners of celebrated judgment of<br \/>\nApex Court rendered in case <a href=\"\/doc\/1033637\/\">State of Haryana and others v. Ch.<br \/>\nBhajan Lal and others<\/a> AIR 1992 SC 604, in which their<br \/>\nLordships have enumerated seven illustrations, in which the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">7<\/span><br \/>\ncomplaint\/ F.I.R., can be quashed. The present case falls within<br \/>\none of the illustrations, which reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>1) Where the allegations made in the First<br \/>\nInformation Report or the complaint, even if<br \/>\nthey are taken at their face value and<br \/>\naccepted in their entirety do not prima facie<br \/>\nconstitute any offence or make out a case<br \/>\nagainst the accused.<br \/>\nAs a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, the net result is that<br \/>\nthe present case calls for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this<br \/>\nCourt under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for<br \/>\nthe purpose of quashing of complaint (Annexure-A), summoning<br \/>\norder (Annexure-D) and the consequential proceedings arisen<br \/>\ntherefrom. Ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>( Virender Singh )<br \/>\n02.01.2009 Judge<br \/>\nJammu<br \/>\nNarinder<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jammu High Court Smt. Anju Vohra vs Ritin Nagpal on 2 January, 2009 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. 561-A Cr P C No. 38 OF 2007 Smt. Anju Vohra Petitioners Ritin Nagpal Respondent !Mr. Virender Bhat, Advocate ^Mr. P. S. Chandel, Advocate Honble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Date: 02.01.2009 :J U [&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":[8,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-221757","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jammu-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Smt. Anju Vohra vs Ritin Nagpal on 2 January, 2009 - 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\/smt-anju-vohra-vs-ritin-nagpal-on-2-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Anju Vohra vs Ritin Nagpal on 2 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-anju-vohra-vs-ritin-nagpal-on-2-january-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-01-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-10T18:25:15+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\\\/smt-anju-vohra-vs-ritin-nagpal-on-2-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-anju-vohra-vs-ritin-nagpal-on-2-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Anju Vohra vs Ritin Nagpal on 2 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-10T18:25:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-anju-vohra-vs-ritin-nagpal-on-2-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1744,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jammu High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-anju-vohra-vs-ritin-nagpal-on-2-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-anju-vohra-vs-ritin-nagpal-on-2-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-anju-vohra-vs-ritin-nagpal-on-2-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Smt. Anju Vohra vs Ritin Nagpal on 2 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-10T18:25:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-anju-vohra-vs-ritin-nagpal-on-2-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-anju-vohra-vs-ritin-nagpal-on-2-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-anju-vohra-vs-ritin-nagpal-on-2-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Anju Vohra vs Ritin Nagpal on 2 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Smt. Anju Vohra vs Ritin Nagpal on 2 January, 2009 - 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\/smt-anju-vohra-vs-ritin-nagpal-on-2-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Anju Vohra vs Ritin Nagpal on 2 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-anju-vohra-vs-ritin-nagpal-on-2-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-10T18:25:15+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\/smt-anju-vohra-vs-ritin-nagpal-on-2-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-anju-vohra-vs-ritin-nagpal-on-2-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Anju Vohra vs Ritin Nagpal on 2 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-10T18:25:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-anju-vohra-vs-ritin-nagpal-on-2-january-2009"},"wordCount":1744,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jammu High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-anju-vohra-vs-ritin-nagpal-on-2-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-anju-vohra-vs-ritin-nagpal-on-2-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-anju-vohra-vs-ritin-nagpal-on-2-january-2009","name":"Smt. Anju Vohra vs Ritin Nagpal on 2 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-10T18:25:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-anju-vohra-vs-ritin-nagpal-on-2-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-anju-vohra-vs-ritin-nagpal-on-2-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-anju-vohra-vs-ritin-nagpal-on-2-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Anju Vohra vs Ritin Nagpal on 2 January, 2009"}]},{"@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\/221757","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=221757"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221757\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=221757"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=221757"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=221757"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}