{"id":225204,"date":"2010-05-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-tondon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-may-2010-3"},"modified":"2015-12-13T12:38:13","modified_gmt":"2015-12-13T07:08:13","slug":"sunil-tondon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-may-2010-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-tondon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-may-2010-3","title":{"rendered":"Sunil Tondon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Sunil Tondon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 May, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: D.B.Bhosale, A. R. Joshi<\/div>\n
    14w385-10                                         1\n\n\n\n\n               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                       \n                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n                 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.385 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n    Sunil Tondon.                              ..Petitioner.\n          Vs.\n    The State of Maharashtra \n    and another.                               .. Respondents. \n\n\n\n\n                                                \n                               ig       ....\n    Mr.Vikas   Singh,   Senior   Advocate   a\/w.   Mr.Yusuf   Iqbal,   Ms.Amrita \n    Narayan,   and   Ms.Anvee   Mehta,   Advocates   i\/b.   M\/s.   Yusuf   & \n                             \n    Associates for the Petitioner.\n\n    Mrs.A.S. Pai, A.P.P., for the Respondent - State.\n           \n\n    Mr.A.H.H. Ponda, Advocate for Respondent No.2.\n                                    ....\n        \n\n\n\n                 CORAM :  D.B.BHOSALE & A.R.JOSHI, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                 DATED  :   06th MAY,  2010<\/p>\n
    ORAL ORDER (PER D.B.BHOSALE,J.):\n<\/p>\n
    1.           Heard   Mr.Singh,   learned   Senior   Counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
    petitioner,   Mr.Ponda,   learned   Counsel   for   respondent   No.2   and <\/p>\n
    Mrs.Pai, learned A.P.P. for the State.\n<\/p>\n
    2.           In   this   Petition,   the   petitioner   has   made   the   following <\/p>\n
    prayer :\n<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:44 :::<\/span>
\n     14w385-10                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
               “(b)   appropriate   orders   be   passed   by   this   Hon’ble <\/p>\n
               Court   inter   alia   restraining   this   Respondent   from <\/p>\n
               carrying   out   any  further   investigation  in   C.R.   No.
\n               66\/05  pending  before   the  Learned  Additional  Chief
\n               Metropolitan   Magistrate’s   19th   Court   at   Esplanade, <\/p>\n
               Mumbai;”<\/p>\n
    3.             Counsel for the parties addressed the Court only on the <\/p>\n
    aforesaid prayer made in the Petition.\n<\/p>\n
    4.             Earlier the petitioner had filed Criminal Writ Petition No.<\/p>\n
    1658 of 2009 in this Court for quashing of the charge sheet on the <\/p>\n
    ground   that   he   did   not   committ   any   offence   and   even   the <\/p>\n
    investigation did not prove any offence having   been committed by <\/p>\n
    him. Since the charge sheet was filed and the petitioner’s application <\/p>\n
    for   discharge   was   pending   before   the   trial   Court,   so   also   the <\/p>\n
    application filed by the prosecution keeping the learned Magistrate <\/p>\n
    informed about their decision to carry out further investigation,  this <\/p>\n
    Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 27-7-2009,with <\/p>\n
    directions to the Magistrate to dispose of both the applications after <\/p>\n
    hearing all the parties within time frame.   Thereafter in September, <\/p>\n
    2009   a   criminal   application   being   Criminal   Application   No.327   of <\/p>\n
    2009   in   Criminal   Writ   Petition   No.1658   of   2009   was   filed   by   the <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:44 :::<\/span>
\n     14w385-10                                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
    petitioner   seeking   direction   to   decide   the   application   filed   by   the <\/p>\n
    prosecution          in        connection           with         the          further <\/p>\n
    investigation\/reinvestigation.   While   deciding   the   application,   this <\/p>\n
    Court in order dated 19.1.2010 made following observations :-\n<\/p>\n
               “1.   By   way   of   this   application,   the   applicant   has
\n               prayed   that   learned   Magistrate   may   be   directed   to
\n               decide the application in connection with the further <\/p>\n
               investigation\/reinvestigation.  On  going  through  the <\/p>\n
               record,   it   seems   that   mere   intimation   has   been
\n               given   on   behalf   of   the   learned   APP   to   the <\/p>\n
               concerned   Magistrate   in   connection   with   the
\n               further   investigation   and   no   application   was
\n               pending before the concerned Magistrate.  Perhaps <\/p>\n
               through oversight, the learned APP at the relevant <\/p>\n
               time, made such a statement that the application is
\n               pending. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the
\n               police   is   further   investigating   the   case,   which <\/p>\n
               according to the learned counsel for the applicant, is
\n               nothing but reinvestigation, we permit the applicant
\n               to   take   out   substantive   proceedings   by   way   of   writ <\/p>\n
               petition or any other proceedings, as may be deemed
\n               fit,   for   quashing   the   reinvestigation\/further
\n               investigation   if   any.     It   would   not   be   proper   to
\n               examine this issue in an application in a writ petition
\n               which is already disposed of by this Court. We make it
\n               clear   that  we  have   not  expressed  any opinion   as  to <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:44 :::<\/span>
\n     14w385-10                                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
               whether   it   is   further   investigation   or   reinvestigation <\/p>\n
               and the contentions of both the sides are kept open.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                               (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    5.             It  is   against this   backdrop, the  petitioner  has  filed the <\/p>\n
    present writ petition. It appears that the learned Magistrate decided <\/p>\n
    both   the   applications   i.e.   application   filed   by   the   petitioner   for <\/p>\n
    discharge  and the  application  filed by the  prosecution  keeping  the <\/p>\n
    learned Magistrate  informed about further  investigation. Insofar as <\/p>\n
    the application filed by the petitioner for discharge is concerned, the <\/p>\n
    learned   Magistrate   has   dismissed   the   same   vide   order   dated   1st <\/p>\n
    August, 2009. This order has not been challenged by the petitioner so <\/p>\n
    far. The application filed by the prosecution was also disposed of by <\/p>\n
    the learned Magistrate vide order dated 6.8.2009. We have perused <\/p>\n
    the   application   filed   by   the   prosecution   dated   5.1.2009.     By   that <\/p>\n
    application, the prosecution had simply kept the learned Magistrate <\/p>\n
    informed about their decision to carry out further investigation as per <\/p>\n
    Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and that there was no prayer made therein.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    In view thereof, the learned Magistrate while deciding the application <\/p>\n
    vide order dated 6.8.2009 in paragraph-6 held thus :\n<\/p>\n
               “6.  This application is  taken on the file of this Court
\n               on 2.1.2009. I have carefully perused the contents of
\n               this   application.   This   application   is   without   any <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:44 :::<\/span>
\n     14w385-10                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
                prayer. So the court need  not pass any order on this <\/p>\n
                application.  Similarly,   there   is   no   question   of <\/p>\n
                accepting   or   rejecting   this   intimation.   With   this
\n                observation this application is disposed off.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    6.             Mr.Singh,   learned   Senior   Counsel   for   the   petitioner <\/p>\n
    vehemently submitted that the prosecution under the garb of further <\/p>\n
    investigation,   is   virtually   reinvestigating   the   offence     which   is   not <\/p>\n
    permissible in law. He submitted that the law is well settled that once <\/p>\n
    having approached   the Magistrate   either for giving intimation, as <\/p>\n
    has been done by the prosecution in the present case,  or for seeking <\/p>\n
    permission  to  carry out further investigation, it  is  not  open  to the <\/p>\n
    investigating agency to carry out further investigation unless formal <\/p>\n
    permission is granted by the Magistrate. In this case, he submitted <\/p>\n
    that   once  having  approached   the   Court  vide  the   application  dated <\/p>\n
    5.1.2009, and that no formal permission was granted by the learned <\/p>\n
    Magistrate,   it   is   not   open   to   the   investigating   agency   to   carry   out <\/p>\n
    further investigation. In short, he submitted that in the facts of this <\/p>\n
    case leave of the Court for carrying out further investigation is must.\n<\/p>\n
    He then submitted that the further investigation being carried out is <\/p>\n
    in   fact   in   the   nature   of   fresh   or   reinvestigation,   which   is   not <\/p>\n
    sustainable in law. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:44 :::<\/span>
\n     14w385-10                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
    upon the judgment  of the Supreme Court  in T.T. Antony Vs. State of <\/p>\n
    Kerala   and   Ors.  (2001)6   SCC   181,  Mithabhai   Pashabhai   Patel   and <\/p>\n
    Ors.   Vs.   State   of   Gujarat   2009(6)   UJ   2891(SC),  Sri   Bhagwan <\/p>\n
    Samardha   Sreepada   Vallabha   Venkata   Vishwandadha   Maharaj   Vs. <\/p>\n
    State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.   (1999) 5 SCC 740, and  Ram Lal <\/p>\n
    Narang Vs. State (Delhi Administration)   (1979) 2 SCC 322.\n<\/p>\n
    7.             On   the   other   hand,   learned   APP,   on   instructions, <\/p>\n
    submitted   that   the   investigating   agency   is   not   carrying   out   fresh <\/p>\n
    investigation or reinvestigating  the crime, as alleged.  She submitted <\/p>\n
    that   a   charge   sheet   has   already   been   filed,   and   now   whatever <\/p>\n
    investigation the investigating agency is carrying out is only further <\/p>\n
    investigation as contemplated by Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.. Mr.Ponda, <\/p>\n
    learned   Counsel   for   respondent   No.2   invited   our   attention   to   the <\/p>\n
    judgment  of   the  Supreme   Court  in    Rama   Chaudhary  Vs.  State  of <\/p>\n
    Bihar,   (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 346  and submitted that the <\/p>\n
    law does not  mandate taking of prior permission from the Magistrate <\/p>\n
    for   carrying   out   further   investigation   and,   therefore   it   cannot   be <\/p>\n
    stated   that   formal   permission   is   necessary.   He   submitted   that   the <\/p>\n
    judgments relied upon by the petitioner do not apply to the facts of <\/p>\n
    the present case.  He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the <\/p>\n
    Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh  Vs.  A.S. Peter   (2008) 2 <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:44 :::<\/span>
\n     14w385-10                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
    Supreme Court Cases 383  and  Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel   and Ors.\n<\/p>\n
    Vs. State of Gujarat  (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 332 in support of <\/p>\n
    his contentions, .\n<\/p>\n
    8.             The   Supreme   Court   in  T.T.   Antony’s  case   (supra)   in <\/p>\n
    paragraph-19 has observed that “even after  filing such a report under <\/p>\n
    Section   173(2)   of   Cr.P.C.,   if   the   investigating   agency   comes     into <\/p>\n
    possession of further information or material, they need not register <\/p>\n
    fresh   FIR   and   they   are   empowered   to   make   further   investigation, <\/p>\n
    normally with the leave of the court,  and where during further <\/p>\n
    investigation they collects further evidence, oral or documentary, <\/p>\n
    they are obliged to forward the same with one or more further <\/p>\n
    reports: this is the import of sub-section (8) of Section 173 of <\/p>\n
    Cr.P.C..”\n<\/p>\n
    9.             In  Mithabhai   Patel  (supra)   the   Supreme   Court   in <\/p>\n
    paragraph 16 observed thus :\n<\/p>\n
                “16.  This Court while passing the order in exercise of <\/p>\n
                its   jurisdiction   under   Article   32   of   Constitution   of
\n                India   did   not   direct   re-investigation.   This   Court
\n                exercised its jurisdiction which was within the realm
\n                of the Code. Indisputably the investigating agency in
\n                terms of Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code
\n                can   pray   before   the   Court   and   may   be   granted <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:44 :::<\/span>
\n     14w385-10                                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
            permission   to   investigate   into   the   matter   further.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            There are, however, certain situations, where such a <\/p>\n
            formal request may not be insisted upon.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                            [emphasis supplied]<\/p>\n
              Further, the Supreme Court has quoted paragraphs 16 to 18 <\/p>\n
      from Rama Chaudhary’s case (supra) which read thus :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            “16.        The   law   does   not   mandate   taking   of   prior <\/p>\n
            permission     from   the   Magistrate   for   further <\/p>\n
            investigation.    Carrying   out   a   further   investigation
\n            even   after   filing   of   the   charge-sheet   is   a   statutory <\/p>\n
            right   of   the   police.   Reinvestigation   without   prior
\n            permission is prohibited. On the other hand, further
\n            investigation is permissible.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            17.       From a plain   reading of sub-section (2) and <\/p>\n
            sub-section (8) of Section 173, it is evident that even
\n            after   submission   of   police   report   under   sub-section
\n            (2) on completion of investigation, the police has a <\/p>\n
            right to “further ” investigation under sub-section (8)
\n            of   Section   173   but   not   “fresh   investigation”   or
\n            “reinvestigation”.     The   meaning   of   “further”   is
\n            additional,   more,   or   supplemental.                 “Further”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            investigation,   therefore,   is   the   continuation   of   the
\n            earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or
\n            reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the
\n            earlier investigation altogether. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            18.    Sub-section (8) of Section 173 clearly envisages <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:44 :::<\/span>
\n     14w385-10                                           9<\/span><\/p>\n
               that   on   completion   of   further   investigation,  the <\/p>\n
               investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate <\/p>\n
               a “further” report and not fresh report regarding the
\n               “further”   evidence   obtained   during   such
\n               investigation.”              (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
           In   Mithabhai   Pashabhai   Patel’s   case   the   Supreme   Court   was <\/p>\n
    dealing   with   the   question   whether   with   the   change   of   an <\/p>\n
    investigating authority, police  custody of the accused on remand can <\/p>\n
    be sought for, although cognizance of the offence had already been <\/p>\n
    taken. The Supreme Court while holding that “further investigation”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    and   “reinvestigation”   stand   on   different   footing,   observed   that   no <\/p>\n
    superior court would ordinarily issue a direction of a reinvestigation.\n<\/p>\n
    10.           In  Ram Lal Narang’s  case   (supra), paragraphs-22 & 23, <\/p>\n
    the Supreme Court observed thus :\n<\/p>\n
               “22.       ………..   We think that in the interests of the
\n               independence of the magistracy and the judiciary, in
\n               the   interests   of   the   purity   of   the   administration   of <\/p>\n
               criminal justice and in the interests of the comity of
\n               the various agencies and institutions entrusted with
\n               different   stages   of   such   administration,  it   would
\n               ordinarily be desirable that the police should inform
\n               the Court and seek formal permission to make further
\n               investigation when fresh facts come to light.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:44 :::<\/span>
\n     14w385-10                                           10<\/span><\/p>\n
              23.         ………..    In  our   view,  notwithstanding   that  a <\/p>\n
              Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence upon <\/p>\n
              a   police  report  submitted  under  Section   173  of   the
\n              1898   Code,  the   right   of   the   police   to   further
\n              investigate   was   not   exhausted   and   the   police   could <\/p>\n
              exercise such right as often as necessary when fresh
\n              information came to light. Where the police desired to
\n              make a further investigation, the police could express <\/p>\n
              their regard and respect for the Court by seeking its <\/p>\n
              formal permission to make further investigation.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                              (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    11.           We     have   also   noticed   the   observations   made   by   the <\/p>\n
    Supreme Court in A.S. Peter’s case (supra), wherein after considering <\/p>\n
    Ram Lal Narang’s case, in paragraph-9 the Supreme Court held thus:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              “9.    Indisputably, the law does not mandate taking of
\n              prior   permission   from   the   Magistrate   for   further
\n              investigation. Carrying out of a further  investigation <\/p>\n
              even   after   filing   of   the   charge-sheet   is   a   statutory
\n              right of the police.  A distinction also exists between
\n              further   investigation   and   reinvestigation.   Whereas
\n              reinvestigation without prior permission is necessarily <\/p>\n
              forbidden, further investigation is not.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                              (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
                We would also like to quote paragraphs-14 to 17 from the <\/p>\n
       judgment   of   the   Supreme   Court   in  A.S.   Peter’s  case,   wherein   a <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:44 :::<\/span>
\n     14w385-10                                         11<\/span><\/p>\n
      detail  reference   is  made  to  the  judgment in    Ram  Lal  Narang’s  <\/p>\n
      case,     on   which   a   heavy   reliance   was   placed   by   the   learned <\/p>\n
      Counsel for the petitioner in the present case. Paragraphs-14 to <\/p>\n
      17, in A.S. Peter’s case, read thus:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             “14.       In  Ram Lal Narang  this Court was concerned
\n             with a case where two conspiracies were alleged; one
\n             being part of a larger conspiracy.  Two investigations <\/p>\n
             were   carried   out.   This   Court,   while   opining   that <\/p>\n
             further investigation is permissible in law, held that
\n             the Magistrate  has a discretion in the matter to direct <\/p>\n
             further investigation, even if he had taken cognizance
\n             of the offence, stating: (SCC pp.337-38, para 20)
\n                 “20.   …   The   criticism   that   a   further <\/p>\n
                 investigation by the police would trench upon <\/p>\n
                 the proceeding before the court is really not of
\n                 very   great   substance,   since   whatever   the
\n                 police may do, the final discretion in regard to <\/p>\n
                 further action is with the Magistrate. That the
\n                 final   word   is   with   Magistrate   is   sufficient
\n                 safeguard against any excessive use or abuse <\/p>\n
                 of   the   power   of   the   police   to   make   further
\n                 investigation.   We   should   not,   however,   be
\n                 understood   to   say   that   the   police   should
\n                 ignore the pendency of a proceeding before a
\n                 court   and   investigate   every   fresh   fact   that
\n                 comes to light as if no cognizance had been <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:44 :::<\/span>
\n     14w385-10                                       12<\/span><\/p>\n
                taken  by  the   court  of   any  offence.  We  think <\/p>\n
                that in the interests of the independence of the <\/p>\n
                magistracy and the judiciary, in the interest of
\n                the   purity   of   the   administration   of   criminal
\n                justice and in the interests of the comity of the <\/p>\n
                various   agencies   and   institutions   entrusted
\n                with different stages of such administration, it
\n                would ordinarily be desirable that the police <\/p>\n
                should   inform   the   court   and   seek   formal <\/p>\n
                permission to make further investigation when
\n                fresh facts come to light.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            15.       While acknowledging the power of the police
\n            authorities to carry out further investigation in terms
\n            of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an <\/p>\n
            observation was made therein to the following effect:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (Narang case, SCC p.338, para 21)
\n                “21.   …   In our view, notwithstanding that a
\n                Magistrate   had   taken   cognizance   of   the <\/p>\n
                offence upon a police report submitted under
\n                Section 173 of the 1898 Code, the right of the
\n                police to further investigate was not exhausted
\n                and   the   police   could   exercise   such   right   as <\/p>\n
                often   as   necessary   when   fresh   information
\n                came   to   light.   Where   the   police   desired   to
\n                make a further investigation, the police could
\n                express their regard and respect for the court
\n                by   seeking   its   formal   permission   to   make <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:44 :::<\/span>
\n     14w385-10                                       13<\/span><\/p>\n
                further investigation.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            16.    Even in regard to an independent investigation <\/p>\n
            undertaken by the police authorities, it was observed:
\n            (Narang case, SCC p.338, para 21)
\n                “21.   …   In our view, notwithstanding that a <\/p>\n
                Magistrate   had   taken   cognizance   of   the
\n                offence upon a police report submitted under
\n                Section 173 of the 1898 Code, the right of the <\/p>\n
                police to further investigate was not exhausted <\/p>\n
                and   the   police   could   exercise   such   right   as
\n                often   as   necessary   when   fresh   information <\/p>\n
                came   to   light.   Where   the   police   desired   to
\n                make a further investigation, the police could
\n                express their regard and respect for the court <\/p>\n
                by   seeking   its   formal   permission   to   make <\/p>\n
                further investigation.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            17.    It is not a case where investigation was carried
\n            out in relation to a separate conspiracy. As allegations <\/p>\n
            had been made against the officer of a local police
\n            station in regard to the mode and manner in which
\n            investigation was carried out, a further investigation
\n            was   directed.   The   court   was   informed   thereabout.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Although,   no   express   permission   was   granted,   but
\n            evidently, such a permission was granted by necessary
\n            implication as further proceeding was stayed by the
\n            learned Magistrate. It is  also not a case where two
\n            charge-sheets were filed before two different courts.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:44 :::<\/span>
\n     14w385-10                                           14<\/span><\/p>\n
               The   court   designated   to   deal   with   the   matters <\/p>\n
               wherein investigation had been carried out by CID, is <\/p>\n
               located   at   Chittor.   It   is   in   the   aforementioned
\n               situation,   the   Sessions   Judge   transferred   the   case
\n               pending in the Tirupati Court to the Designated Court <\/p>\n
               at   Chittor.   Cognizance   of   further   offence   had   also
\n               been taken by the Chittor Court.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    12.            In  Ram Lal Narang’s case  the Court was concerned with <\/p>\n
    the case where two conspiracies were   alleged; one being part of a <\/p>\n
    larger   conspiracy.   Two   investigations   were   carried   out.   Subsequent <\/p>\n
    investigation   revealed   that   still   more   persons   were   involved.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Therefore, a second case  of  conspiracy  was initiated in  a  different <\/p>\n
    court   and   the   earlier   conspiracy   case   was   withdrawn.   It   was, <\/p>\n
    therefore, held that the investigation and taking of cognizance in the <\/p>\n
    second case was not without jurisdiction.  It is against that backdrop, <\/p>\n
    the Supreme Court observed as quoted above. It would be relevant to <\/p>\n
    refer   to   the   observations   made   by   the   Supreme   Court   in   the   very <\/p>\n
    same   judgment   (Ram   Lal   Narang’s   case)   in   paragraph   15.   In   this <\/p>\n
    paragraph the Supreme Court has considered the observations of the <\/p>\n
    Privy Council in King Emperor Vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed and observed <\/p>\n
    thus :\n<\/p>\n
               “15.       The police thus had the statutory right and <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:44 :::<\/span>
\n     14w385-10                                           15<\/span><\/p>\n
               duty   to   `register’   every   information   relating   to   the <\/p>\n
               commission of a cognizable offence.  The police also <\/p>\n
               had   the   statutory   right   and   duty   to   investigate   the
\n               facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case   where   the
\n               commission   of   a   cognizable   offence   was   suspected <\/p>\n
               and to submit the report of such investigation to the
\n               Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of
\n               the   offence   upon   a   police   report.  These   statutory <\/p>\n
               rights and duties of the police were not circumscribed <\/p>\n
               by any power of superintendence or interference in
\n               the Magistrate; nor was any sanction required from a <\/p>\n
               Magistrate to empower the Police to investigate into a
\n               cognizable offence. ….”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                        (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    13.    From perusal of the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court, <\/p>\n
    it is clear that the law does not mandate taking of prior permission <\/p>\n
    from the Magistrate for further investigation.It is a statutory right and <\/p>\n
    duty of the police to further investigate as often as necessary when <\/p>\n
    fresh information came to light after filing of the charge-sheet.  These <\/p>\n
    statutory rights and duties of the police cannot be circumscribed by <\/p>\n
    any power of superintendence nor any sanction is required from a <\/p>\n
    Magistrate   to   empower   the   police   to   investigate   into   a   cognizable <\/p>\n
    offence.   However,     it     would     be     desirable     to   keep   the   Court <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:44 :::<\/span>
\n     14w385-10                                            16<\/span><\/p>\n
    informed  about   further  investigation, more particularly where  the <\/p>\n
    charge   has   been   framed.   The   objective   for   keeping   the   Court <\/p>\n
    informed   or   for   seeking   formal   permission   to   make   further <\/p>\n
    investigation is that the Court should know about it and should not <\/p>\n
    proceed   to   hear   the   case.   Further   investigation   after   filing   of   the <\/p>\n
    charge   sheet  is   the     continuation   of  the  earlier   investigation.  Sub-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    section (8) of Section 173 of Cr.P.C., envisages that on completion of <\/p>\n
    further investigation, the investigating agency  has to forward to the <\/p>\n
    Magistrate a further report regarding the further evidence obtained <\/p>\n
    during   such   investigation.   Therefore,   what   is   necessary   is   only   to <\/p>\n
    keep   the   Magistrate   informed   about     further   investigation.   In   the <\/p>\n
    present case, the prosecution has done so, and the learned Magistrate <\/p>\n
    vide the order dated 6.8.2009 has taken notice of the same.\n<\/p>\n
    14.              The   petitioner   has   contended   that   under   the   garb   of <\/p>\n
    further  investigation, the  petitioner  apprehends  that the  police  are <\/p>\n
    likely   to   reinvestigate   the   offence.   This   contention   deserves   to   be <\/p>\n
    rejected   out   right   since   in   law   a   fresh   or   reinvestigation   is   not <\/p>\n
    sustainable   without   permission   of   the   court.   Though   the   learned <\/p>\n
    Counsel   for   the   petitioner   submitted   that   the   police   are   virtually <\/p>\n
    carrying  out   a   fresh   investigation,   he  could   not  demonstrate  as  to <\/p>\n
    why was he saying so. In this case, the charge-sheet has already been <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:44 :::<\/span>
\n     14w385-10                                             17<\/span><\/p>\n
    filed.   In     any   case,   reinvestigation   is   not   permissible   in   law   and, <\/p>\n
    therefore, the apprehension expressed that the police are carrying out <\/p>\n
    reinvestigation cannot be entertained at this stage. In a given case it <\/p>\n
    may   possible   to   examine   such   a   contention   after   filing   of   the <\/p>\n
    additional   charge-sheet.   Moreover,   in   the   present   case   the <\/p>\n
    prosecution has not taken any steps for  seeking cancellation of bail <\/p>\n
    or police custody of the accused so as to  prima facie  hold that they <\/p>\n
    intend to reinvestigate the offence. The further investigation, which <\/p>\n
    the investigating agency is carrying out in the present case, is nothing <\/p>\n
    but   the   continuation   of   the   earlier   investigation   and   not <\/p>\n
    reinvestigation  as alleged by the  petitioner.   The contention of the <\/p>\n
    petitioner that once having approached the Magistrate intimating him <\/p>\n
    about   the   further   investigation,   without   formal   permission   of   the <\/p>\n
    Magistrate,   it   is   not   open   to   the   investigating   agency   to   carry   out <\/p>\n
    further investigation, therefore, must  be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
                With these  observations, the  writ petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
           (A.R.JOSHI,J.)                                            (D.B.BHOSALE,J.)\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:55:44 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Sunil Tondon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 May, 2010 Bench: D.B.Bhosale, A. R. Joshi 14w385-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.385 OF 2010 Sunil Tondon. ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another. .. Respondents. ig …. Mr.Vikas Singh, Senior […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-225204","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSunil Tondon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 May, 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\/sunil-tondon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-may-2010-3\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sunil Tondon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-tondon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-may-2010-3\" \/>\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=\"2010-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-13T07:08:13+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-tondon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-may-2010-3#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-tondon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-may-2010-3\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sunil Tondon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-13T07:08:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-tondon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-may-2010-3\"},\"wordCount\":3311,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-tondon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-may-2010-3#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-tondon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-may-2010-3\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-tondon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-may-2010-3\",\"name\":\"Sunil Tondon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-13T07:08:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-tondon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-may-2010-3#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-tondon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-may-2010-3\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-tondon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-may-2010-3#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sunil Tondon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 May, 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":"Sunil Tondon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 May, 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\/sunil-tondon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-may-2010-3","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sunil Tondon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-tondon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-may-2010-3","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-13T07:08:13+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-tondon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-may-2010-3#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-tondon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-may-2010-3"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sunil Tondon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-13T07:08:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-tondon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-may-2010-3"},"wordCount":3311,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-tondon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-may-2010-3#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-tondon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-may-2010-3","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-tondon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-may-2010-3","name":"Sunil Tondon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-13T07:08:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-tondon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-may-2010-3#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-tondon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-may-2010-3"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-tondon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-may-2010-3#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sunil Tondon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 May, 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\/225204","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=225204"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/225204\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=225204"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=225204"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=225204"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}