{"id":224663,"date":"2011-05-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-agarwal-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-13-may-2011"},"modified":"2015-08-22T23:41:22","modified_gmt":"2015-08-22T18:11:22","slug":"subhash-agarwal-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-13-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-agarwal-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-13-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Subhash Agarwal &amp; Ors vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 13 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Subhash Agarwal &amp; Ors vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 13 May, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n                           Cr. Revision No. 826 of 2010\n\n     1. Subhash Agarwal @ Subhash Kumar Agarwal\n     2. Shankar Agarwal @ Shankar Lal Agarwal           Petitioners\n                                 Versus\n     1. The State of Jharkhand\n     2. Manju Devi                                    Opp. Parties\n                                 ---\n     CORAM:     The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Merathia\n                 The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.N. Upadhyay\n\n     For the Petitioners: M\/s Indrajeet Sinha, Ranjan Kumar, Ajay Kumar\n                          and Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocates\n     For the State:       Mr. Binod Kr. Singh, APP\n     For the O.P. No. 2: Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate\n                                           ---\n                 I.A. No. 2284\/2010\n\n12.13.05.2011<\/pre>\n<p>        As prayed, Mr. Sinha is permitted to label this I.A. under<br \/>\n      section 482 Cr.P.C. and delete the name of petitioner no. 3-Mali Devi<br \/>\n      who is said to have died during the pendency of this revision<br \/>\n      application.\n<\/p>\n<p>      2.             This I.A. has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for<br \/>\n      exempting the petitioners from surrendering in the trial court, for<br \/>\n      entertaining this Criminal Revision Application. On such prayer, by<br \/>\n      order dated 01.10.2010, the learned Single Judge has referred the<br \/>\n      matter to the Division Bench for settling the following issues.\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                          &#8221; Whether when both the parties have compromised<br \/>\n                          their case outside the Court and file a joint<br \/>\n                          compromise petition for compound the offence under<br \/>\n                          Section 320 Cr.P.C., in the revision application so<br \/>\n                          filed by the petitioners, the said revision application<br \/>\n                          can be posted for admission without surrender by the<br \/>\n                          petitioners in the trial court in view of the aforesaid<br \/>\n                          Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     3.          Mr. Indrajeet Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\n     petitioners, submitted that after the petitioners were convicted for the<br \/>\n     offences under section 498-A IPC by the Trial Court and the Appellate<br \/>\n     Court, the complainant\/O.P. No. 2-wife and the petitioner no. 1-<br \/>\n     husband settled their disputes on the terms and conditions stipulated<br \/>\n     in the joint compromise petition filed by the parties in this criminal<br \/>\n     revision application being I.A. No. 2232\/10.\n<\/p>\n<p>                 He further submitted that it is true that vires of Rule 159<br \/>\n     of the Jharkhand High Court Rules (JHC Rules for short) stand affirmed<br \/>\n     by this court in the case reported in 2005(1) J C R 394 (jhr) <a href=\"\/doc\/1058642\/\">Mahadeo<br \/>\n Prasad Shrivastava vs. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi,<\/a> but even<br \/>\nthen, in exercise of inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C., this<br \/>\ncourt, can exempt the petitioners from surrendering, for entertaining<br \/>\nthis Revision Application. He relied on certain judgments \/ orders.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.            Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 did<br \/>\nnot dispute this position.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.            However, Mr. Binod Kr. Singh, learned State counsel<br \/>\nsubmitted that in terms of Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court<br \/>\nRules, petitioners should surrender, and in view of the settlement, at<br \/>\nbest, some protection can be given to them like grant of provisional<br \/>\nbail, etc.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.            In the case of Mahadeo Prasad (Supra), it was submitted<br \/>\nthat Rule 159 of the J.H.C. Rules has been made, in exercise of the<br \/>\npowers conferred on High Court under section 477(1)(d) of Cr.P.C.<br \/>\nHowever, section 482 Cr.P.C. is a non obstante clause, saving the<br \/>\ninherent powers of the High Court, for doing ex debito justitiae to do<br \/>\nthat real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone it<br \/>\nexists\n<\/p>\n<p>7.            In the   judgment reported in (2006) 7 SCC 296 <a href=\"\/doc\/1241751\/\">Popular<br \/>\nMuthiah vs. State Represented<\/a> by Inspector of Police, it was observed<br \/>\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                   &#8220;30. In respect of the incidental or supplemental<br \/>\n                   power, evidently, the High Court can exercise its<br \/>\n                   inherent jurisdiction irrespective of the nature of the<br \/>\n                   proceedings. It is not trammelled by procedural<br \/>\n                   restrictions in that:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                          (i) Power can be exercised suo motu in the<br \/>\n                   interest of justice. If such a power is not conceded, it<br \/>\n                   may even lead to injustice to an accused.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                          (ii) Such a power can be exercised concurrently<br \/>\n                   with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction and no<br \/>\n                   formal application is required to be filed therefor.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                          (iii) It is, however, beyond any doubt that the<br \/>\n                   power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal<br \/>\n                   Procedure is not unlimited. It can inter alia be<br \/>\n                   exercised where the Code is silent, where the power<br \/>\n                   of the court is not treated as exhaustive, or there is<br \/>\n                   a specific provision in the Code; or the statute does<br \/>\n                   not fall within the purview of the Code because it<br \/>\n                   involves application of a special law. It acts ex debito<br \/>\n                   justitiae. It can, thus, do real and substantial justice<br \/>\n                   for which alone it exist.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                           &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                   32. The decision of this Court emphasised the fact<br \/>\n                   that there exists a distinction between two classes of<br \/>\n                   cases viz. (i) where application of Section 482 is<br \/>\n                 specifically excluded, and (ii) where there is no<br \/>\n                specific provision but limitation of the power which is<br \/>\n                sought to be exercised has specifically been stated.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                       &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                34. This Court furthermore laid down that the<br \/>\n                inherent power of the High Court can be invoked in<br \/>\n                respect of the matters covered by the provisions of<br \/>\n                the Code unless there is specific provision to redress<br \/>\n                the grievance of the aggrieved party.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                35. It is also not in dispute that the said power<br \/>\n                overrides other provisions of the Code but evidently<br \/>\n                cannot be exercised in violation\/contravention of a<br \/>\n                statutory power created under any other enactment.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                43. Such a power evidently can be exercised even<br \/>\n                after the trial is over.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>8.         In the case reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 B.S. Joshi vs.<br \/>\nState of Haryana an FIR was registered by the wife under section<br \/>\n498-A\/323\/406 IPC. Then an affidavit was filed by her saying that the<br \/>\nparties have settled their dispute and have agreed for mutual divorce.<br \/>\nThe High Court rejected the prayer for quashing FIR under section<br \/>\n482 Cr.P.C., in view of the bar under section 320 Cr.P.C.          The<br \/>\nSupreme Court interalia observed as follows.\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                &#8220;12. The special features in such matrimonial<br \/>\n                matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court<br \/>\n                to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial<br \/>\n                disputes.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                13. The observations made by this Court, though in<br \/>\n                a slightly different context, in <a href=\"\/doc\/488394\/\">G.V. Rao v. L.H.V.<br \/>\n                Prasad<\/a> are very apt for determining the approach<br \/>\n                required to be kept in view in a matrimonial dispute<br \/>\n                by the courts. It was said that there has been an<br \/>\n                outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times.<br \/>\n                Marriage is a a sacred ceremony, the main purpose<br \/>\n                of which is to enable the young couple to settle down<br \/>\n                in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial<br \/>\n                skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume<br \/>\n                serious proportions resulting in commission of<br \/>\n                heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also<br \/>\n                involved with the result that those who could have<br \/>\n                counselled and brought about rapprochement are<br \/>\n                rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused<br \/>\n                in the criminal case. There are many other reasons<br \/>\n                which need not be mentioned here for not<br \/>\n                encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties<br \/>\n                may ponder over their defaults and terminate their<br \/>\n                disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of<br \/>\n                fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years<br \/>\n                and years to conclude and in that process the parties<br \/>\n                lose their &#8220;young&#8221; days&#8221; in chasing their &#8220;cases&#8221; in<br \/>\n                different courts.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing<br \/>\n                Chapter-XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian<br \/>\n                 Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by<br \/>\n                her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section<br \/>\n                498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband<br \/>\n                and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to<br \/>\n                coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful<br \/>\n                demands of dowry. The hyper technical view would<br \/>\n                be counterproductive and would act against interests<br \/>\n                of women and against the object for which this<br \/>\n                provision was added. There is every likelihood that<br \/>\n                non-exercise of inherent power to quash the<br \/>\n                proceedings to meet the ends of justice would<br \/>\n                prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the<br \/>\n                object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the<br \/>\n                High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can<br \/>\n                quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and<br \/>\n                Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the<br \/>\n                powers under Section 482 of the Code.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>           Paragraphs-36 and 37 of the judgment reported in (2010)<br \/>\n7 SCC 667 Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and<br \/>\nanother are also relevant:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                &#8220;36. Experience reveals that long and protracted<br \/>\n                criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and<br \/>\n                bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It<br \/>\n                is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases<br \/>\n                filed by the complainant if the husband or the<br \/>\n                husband&#8217;s relations had to remain in jail even for a<br \/>\n                few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable<br \/>\n                settlement altogether. The process of suffering is<br \/>\n                extremely long and painful.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                37. Before parting with this case, we would like to<br \/>\n                observe that a serious relook of the entire provision<br \/>\n                is warranted by the legislature. It is also a matter of<br \/>\n                common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the<br \/>\n                incident are reflected in a large number of<br \/>\n                complaints. The tendency of over implication is also<br \/>\n                reflected in a very large number of cases. The<br \/>\n                criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all<br \/>\n                concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may<br \/>\n                also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of<br \/>\n                suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number<br \/>\n                of these complaints have not only flooded the courts<br \/>\n                but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting<br \/>\n                peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is<br \/>\n                high time that the legislature must take into<br \/>\n                consideration the pragmatic realities and make<br \/>\n                suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative<br \/>\n                for the legislature to take into consideration the<br \/>\n                informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in<br \/>\n                consideration and make necessary changes in the<br \/>\n                relevant provisions of law.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>9.         Moreover, from the order dated 12.02.2007 passed in Cr.<br \/>\nRevision No. 50 of 2007 with Cr. Revision No. 51 of 2007, it appears<br \/>\n      that the learned Single Judge allowed the revision applications arising<br \/>\n     out of the judgment and order of conviction passed under section<br \/>\n     498-A\/34\/323 IPC in terms of the settlement arrived at between the<br \/>\n     parties without insisting the petitioners of those cases to surrender as<br \/>\n     a     condition   for   entertaining   the   revision    petition.   Though   not<br \/>\n     specifically mentioned, but such order could be passed only under the<br \/>\n     inherent powers of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     10.           After hearing the parties,going through the provisions, and<br \/>\n     the judgments \/ orders relied, we are inclined to answer the question<br \/>\n     referred by the learned Single Judge as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>                   Even if the parties have compromised their dispute outside<br \/>\n     the court and filed a joint compromise petition for compounding the<br \/>\n     offence under section 320 Cr.P.C. in the revision application, it cannot<br \/>\n     be posted for admission without surrender by the petitioners in the<br \/>\n     trial court in view of Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>                   However, in view of the aforesaid judgments passed by<br \/>\n     the Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that if a petition<br \/>\n     under section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed in the Revision Application, by the<br \/>\n     persons convicted for the offences under sections 498-A\/34\/323\/406<br \/>\n     IPC and sections 3 \/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for exemption from<br \/>\n     surrendering on the basis of the settlement between the parties, one<br \/>\n     way or the other, before or after conviction, such petition can be<br \/>\n     posted before learned Single Judge and section 320 Cr.P.C. or Rule<br \/>\n     159 of the J.H.C. Rules will not create bar for the learned Single Judge<br \/>\n     in exercising the inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. in<br \/>\n     exempting the petitioners from surrendering in the trial court, for<br \/>\n     entertaining or passing other orders as the court may think fit and<br \/>\n     proper.\n<\/p>\n<p>     11.           Let the Revision Application be posted before the learned<br \/>\n     Single Judge along with this I.A.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                              (R.K. Merathia, J)<\/p>\n<p>                                                             (D.N. Upadhyay, J)<br \/>\nRanjeet\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court Subhash Agarwal &amp; Ors vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 13 May, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 826 of 2010 1. Subhash Agarwal @ Subhash Kumar Agarwal 2. Shankar Agarwal @ Shankar Lal Agarwal Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Manju Devi [&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":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-224663","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Subhash Agarwal &amp; Ors vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 13 May, 2011 - 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\/subhash-agarwal-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-13-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Subhash Agarwal &amp; Ors vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 13 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-agarwal-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-13-may-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-05-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-22T18:11:22+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-agarwal-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-13-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-agarwal-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-13-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Subhash Agarwal &amp; Ors vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 13 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-22T18:11:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-agarwal-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-13-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1862,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-agarwal-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-13-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-agarwal-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-13-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-agarwal-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-13-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Subhash Agarwal &amp; Ors vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 13 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-22T18:11:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-agarwal-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-13-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-agarwal-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-13-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-agarwal-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-13-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Subhash Agarwal &amp; Ors vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 13 May, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Subhash Agarwal &amp; Ors vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 13 May, 2011 - 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\/subhash-agarwal-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-13-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Subhash Agarwal &amp; Ors vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 13 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-agarwal-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-13-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-22T18:11:22+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-agarwal-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-13-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-agarwal-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-13-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Subhash Agarwal &amp; Ors vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 13 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-22T18:11:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-agarwal-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-13-may-2011"},"wordCount":1862,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-agarwal-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-13-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-agarwal-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-13-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-agarwal-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-13-may-2011","name":"Subhash Agarwal &amp; Ors vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 13 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-22T18:11:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-agarwal-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-13-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-agarwal-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-13-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-agarwal-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-13-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Subhash Agarwal &amp; Ors vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 13 May, 2011"}]},{"@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\/224663","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=224663"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224663\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=224663"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=224663"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=224663"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}