{"id":225578,"date":"2009-12-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-kumaraselvam-vs-the-deputy-inspector-on-11-december-2009"},"modified":"2017-03-25T03:09:18","modified_gmt":"2017-03-24T21:39:18","slug":"c-kumaraselvam-vs-the-deputy-inspector-on-11-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-kumaraselvam-vs-the-deputy-inspector-on-11-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"C.Kumaraselvam vs The Deputy Inspector on 11 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">C.Kumaraselvam vs The Deputy Inspector on 11 December, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 11\/12\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU\n\nWRIT PETITION (MD) No.4435 OF 2009\nand WRIT PETITION (MD) No. 4436 of 2009\nM.P.(MD)Nos.1, 1, 2 and 2 of 2009\n\nC.Kumaraselvam    \t        ..     Petitioner in\n                                       W.P.(MD)No.4435 of 2009\n\nA.Murugesan                     ..     Petitioner in\n                                       W.P.(MD)No.4436 of 2009\nVs\n\n1.The Deputy Inspector\n   of General of Police,\n  Tirunelveli Zone,\n  Tirunelveli.\n\n2.The Superintendent of Police,\n  Thoothukudi District,\n  Thoothukudi.\n\n3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,\n  Vilathikulam Sub-Division,\n  Thoothukudi District.              ..   Respondents in both<\/pre>\n<p>                                          the Writ Petitions<\/p>\n<p>Writ Petition (MD) Nos.4435 and 4436 of 2009 filed under Article 226 of<br \/>\nthe Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the entire<br \/>\nrecords pertaining to the charge memo issued by the 1st respondent vide his<br \/>\nproceedings in j.g.vz;.17\/2009 and j.g.vz;.16\/2009 respectively dated 28.1.2009<br \/>\nand to quash the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>!For petitioners   &#8230; Mr.R.Anand<br \/>\n^For respondents   &#8230; Mr.M.Rajarajan,<br \/>\n                       Government Advocate\t<\/p>\n<p>:COMMON ORDER\t<\/p>\n<p>\tThe petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4435 of 2009 is a Head Constable and the<br \/>\npetitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4436 of 2009 is a Sub-Inspector of Police.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. During the year 2008, they were working at Thiruchendur Police Station<br \/>\nin Thoothukudi District.  A complaint preferred by one Karukkuvelrajan, son of<br \/>\nMurugan Pillai of Therikudiyiruppu Village before the learned Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate, Thiruchendur was referred to the Sub-Inspector of Police,<br \/>\nThiruchendur Police Station under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code<br \/>\nwith a direction to register a case on the said complaint and to investigate.<br \/>\nBased on the said order of the learned Judicial Magistrate dated 27.5.2008, the<br \/>\npetitioner, Mr. C.Kumaraselvam, who was the then a Head Constable, registered a<br \/>\ncase in Crime No.235 of 2008 under Section 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of the IPC on<br \/>\n27.5.2008.  Thereafter, Mr.Murugesan, the Sub-Inspector of Police, took up the<br \/>\ninvestigation and filed a final report before the said Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The petitioner, Mr. Kumaraselvam, is stated to have assisted Mr.<br \/>\nMurugesan in the matter of investigation and for laying the charge sheet.  The<br \/>\nlearned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance on the said final report and it<br \/>\nappears that the trial is pending.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. In the mean while, curiously and shockingly, the first respondent<br \/>\nissued a charge memorandum in  j.g.vz;.16\/2009 dated 28.1.2009 under Rule 3(b)<br \/>\nof the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinates (Discipline and Appeal) Rules against the<br \/>\npetitioner, Murugesan levelling as many as two charges. The first charge is that<br \/>\nthe petitioner Mr.Murugesan, as the Sub-Inspector of Police of Thiruchendur<br \/>\nPolice Station, without properly investigating the case, laid charge sheet on<br \/>\n10.6.2008.  The second charge is that without getting approval from the<br \/>\nSuperintendent of Police, he submitted a final report to the Court with ulterior<br \/>\nmotives and met the staff of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate and managed to<br \/>\nget the same taken on file.  Seeking to quash the said charge memorandum, he has<br \/>\ncome forward With Writ Petition (MD)No.4436 of 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. Similarly, the first respondent issued a charge memorandum in<br \/>\nj.g.vz;.17\/2009 dated 28.1.2009 under  Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police<br \/>\nSubordinates (Discipline and Appeal) Rules against the petitioner Mr.<br \/>\nKumaraselvam, levelling two charges.  The first charge is that the petitioner<br \/>\nregistered the case without placing the papers before the superior officers for<br \/>\ntheir approval with corrupt motive.   The second charge is that he joined along<br \/>\nwith the petitioner Mr. Murugesan in meeting the staff of the Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate&#8217;s Court to see that the case is taken on file.  Seeking to quash the<br \/>\nsaid charge memorandum, he has come forward with Writ Petition (MD) No.4435 of<br \/>\n2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that both the charge<br \/>\nmemorandums are liable to be quashed since the case was registered in pursuance<br \/>\nof a direction issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchendur under<br \/>\nSection 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.  When the petitioners have simply<br \/>\nobeyed the direction of the judicial order passed by the learned Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, such<br \/>\nregistration of the case cannot be found fault with in any manner so as to form<br \/>\nthe basis for the charge memorandums issued.  Further, he submitted that the<br \/>\ncase was properly investigated, materials were properly collected and placed<br \/>\nbefore the Court along with the final report.  It was only on considering all<br \/>\nthose materials, the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on the said<br \/>\nreport.  He would further submit that subsequently, a petition was filed by some<br \/>\nother police officer on the instruction of the higher police officers before the<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate seeking permission to reinvestigate the case.  But the<br \/>\nlearned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the same.  He would further submit that<br \/>\nwhen there are such judicial orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate, it is not<br \/>\nat all legal on the part of the first respondent to issue such charge<br \/>\nmemorandums.  Thus, the charge memorandums are liable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is<br \/>\nstated that the writ Petitions are not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioners<br \/>\nhave got alternative remedy of submitting their explanations and to face the<br \/>\nenquiry so as to establish their contentions.  It is further contended in<br \/>\nparagraph 6 of the counter affidavit that, though it is true that a direction<br \/>\nhad been issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate to register the case, the<br \/>\npetitioner, Mr.Kumaraselvam, without any intimation to the higher authorities<br \/>\nhas registered the case.  It is further stated that whenever any such direction<br \/>\nis received from the Court, the petitioners are expected to intimate the order<br \/>\nof the Judicial Magistrate to the higher officials.  Since the petitioners have<br \/>\nnot obeyed the same, the said conduct amounts to misconduct and that is the<br \/>\nfoundation for the first charge.  It is further stated that the second<br \/>\nrespondent had directed the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch to<br \/>\nfurther investigate the case and an order to that effect was issued on 1.7.2008.<br \/>\nBut, knowing the same fully well, the petitioners filed the final report, in the<br \/>\nmean while, before the Court, and got the case taken on file by the learned<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate.   Thus, according to the respondents, this conduct also<br \/>\namounts to misconduct.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. I have heard Mr. R.Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners<br \/>\nand Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. At the outset, I have to state that it is the settled law that as soon<br \/>\nas any direction is issued by a Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure Code, it is the bounden duty of the Station House Officer to<br \/>\nregister a case and to investigate the same.  In the case on hand, admittedly,<br \/>\nsuch direction was issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchendur on<br \/>\n27.5.2008 and the same was received by the Thiruchendur Police Station at 7.00<br \/>\np.m.,.  In pursuance of the said direction, the petitioner, Mr. Kumaraselvam,<br \/>\nhad duly registered the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. In this regard, I have to state that, after all, the petitioner, Mr.<br \/>\nKumaraselvam had acted swiftly to obey the order of the Court in which, no fault<br \/>\ncan be found.  For having obeyed the order of the Court, one cannot expect him<br \/>\nto undergo the ordeal of facing the charge.  Thus, the first charge against the<br \/>\npetitioner, Mr. Kumaraslevam, is not only baseless but also misconceived.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. After the case was registered by Mr. Kumaraselvam, the Head Constable,<br \/>\nit was duly taken up for investigation by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mr.<br \/>\nMurugesan and he investigated the same.  Time and again, the Courts have been<br \/>\ninsisting upon the police officials to expedite the investigation and to lay<br \/>\nfinal reports before the Courts of law without any unnecessary delay.  The<br \/>\npetitioner, Mr.Murugesan had done the same by filing a final report on 10.6.2008<br \/>\nitself.  On going through the final report and other documents submitted along<br \/>\nwith the same, the learned Judicial Magistrate, having satisfied that there was<br \/>\na case to be tried, took cognizance of the offences and that is why, he assigned<br \/>\nthe number.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. The second charge against both the petitioners states that they have<br \/>\nmanaged to get the case taken on file by the Court by influencing staff of the<br \/>\nCourt.  In this regard, I have to state that it only reflects the non-<br \/>\napplication of mind of the first respondent as to what is the process of taking<br \/>\ncognizance by a Magistrate.  Probably, he is under the mistaken impression that<br \/>\ntaking cognizance is a mechanical act that too, by the staff of the Court.  It<br \/>\nis needless to say that taking cognizance is a serious judicial act to be<br \/>\nperformed by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure<br \/>\nCode.  On receipt of the police report, the Judicial Magistrate is required to<br \/>\nlook into the final report including all the papers submitted along with it to<br \/>\nsee whether there is any offence to be taken cognizance of and if only he is so<br \/>\nsatisfied, he will take cognizance and decide to issue summons under Section 204<br \/>\nof the Criminal Procedure Code to the accused.  Thus, the entire process of<br \/>\ntaking cognizance is performed by the Judicial Magistrate judicially in which<br \/>\nthe staff of the Court have got no role to play except placing the records<br \/>\nbefore the learned Judicial Magistrate.  When that be so, without properly<br \/>\nunderstanding the said legal process, the second charge has been levelled<br \/>\nagainst both the petitioners as though they have managed to get the case taken<br \/>\ncognizance of, with the help of the staff of the Court.  Thus, the second charge<br \/>\nagainst both the petitioners is again baseless.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. Insofar as the first charge against the petitioner, Mr. Murugesan is<br \/>\nconcerned, it alleges that the petitioner without making proper investigation<br \/>\nhad filed a final report before the Court.  But, now curiously, in the counter,<br \/>\na new theory is coined by saying that when there was transfer order by the<br \/>\nsecond respondent transferring the investigation to the Inspector of Police,<br \/>\nDistrict Crime Branch, the petitioner, Mr. Murugesan hurriedly concluded the<br \/>\ninvestigation and laid charge sheet knowing fully well about the transfer of<br \/>\ninvestigation.  But, the learned counsel for the petitioners would point out<br \/>\nthat the charge sheet had already been laid on 10.6.2008 itself where as,<br \/>\naccording to the counter, the order transferring the investigation was made only<br \/>\non 1.7.2008.  Thus, the said allegation is incorrect.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. It is further stated in the said charge that the petitioner,<br \/>\nMr.Murugesan, did not do the investigation properly.  If that is so, one would<br \/>\nexpect the statement appended to the charges to contain as to what are all the<br \/>\nlapses said to have been committed by the petitioner, but, no such allegation is<br \/>\nfound any where in the records.  On the contrary, as pointed out by the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioners, a petition was filed by the Inspector of Police,<br \/>\nDistrict Crime Branch, before the learned Judicial Magistrate seeking permission<br \/>\nunder Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code for reinvestigation\/further<br \/>\ninvestigation.   But, the learned Judicial Magistrate was pleased to dismiss the<br \/>\nsame, which means, he was not satisfied that the allegations made in the<br \/>\npetition warranted either reinvestigation or further investigation.  This would<br \/>\nalso go to show that, apparently, there appears to be no lapses committed by the<br \/>\npetitioner, Mr.Murugesan, in the matter of investigation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. Above all, if really, any such lapse had been committed, the same<br \/>\nwould be found out by the trial Court and it would be exposed.   Even before<br \/>\nthat exercise is completed, I do not know how the first respondent can come to<br \/>\nthe conclusion that the petitioner, Mr. Murugesan has not investigated the case<br \/>\nproperly.  Thus, the first charge is also totally baseless.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. Now, coming to the preliminary objection raised by the learned<br \/>\nGovernment Advocate that the Writ Petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the<br \/>\npetitioners have got an alternative remedy of making their explanations before<br \/>\nthe enquiry officer,  I am of the view that in general, in matters of charge<br \/>\nmemo, this Court would be very slow in interfering.  But, there are certain<br \/>\nexceptions to the said general proposition.  In a case where the Court is of the<br \/>\nview that the charges are totally baseless, it is settled law that the Courts<br \/>\nshould rise upto the occasion to exercise its power under Article 226 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India to extend its long arm to rescue the person, who is<br \/>\nunnecessarily made to toil to face the charge memorandum.  The case on hand, is<br \/>\nsuch a classic example where, as I have stated at the outset, charges are not<br \/>\nonly baseless but also highly mischievous.   Under these circumstances, this is<br \/>\nthe fittest occasion for this Court to interfere with the charge memorandums<br \/>\nissued against the petitioners.  Hence, this Court is inclined to quash the<br \/>\nimpugned charge memorandums.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17. In the result, both the Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned<br \/>\ncharge memorandums are quashed.  Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.<br \/>\nNo costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>asvm<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Deputy Inspector<br \/>\n   of General of Police,<br \/>\n  Tirunelveli Zone,<br \/>\n  Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Superintendent of Police,<br \/>\n  Thoothukudi District,<br \/>\n  Thoothukudi.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,<br \/>\n  Vilathikulam Sub-Division,<br \/>\n  Thoothukudi District.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court C.Kumaraselvam vs The Deputy Inspector on 11 December, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11\/12\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU WRIT PETITION (MD) No.4435 OF 2009 and WRIT PETITION (MD) No. 4436 of 2009 M.P.(MD)Nos.1, 1, 2 and 2 of 2009 C.Kumaraselvam .. Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4435 of [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-225578","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>C.Kumaraselvam vs The Deputy Inspector on 11 December, 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\/c-kumaraselvam-vs-the-deputy-inspector-on-11-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.Kumaraselvam vs The Deputy Inspector on 11 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-kumaraselvam-vs-the-deputy-inspector-on-11-december-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=\"2009-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-24T21:39:18+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-kumaraselvam-vs-the-deputy-inspector-on-11-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-kumaraselvam-vs-the-deputy-inspector-on-11-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.Kumaraselvam vs The Deputy Inspector on 11 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-24T21:39:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-kumaraselvam-vs-the-deputy-inspector-on-11-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2090,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-kumaraselvam-vs-the-deputy-inspector-on-11-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-kumaraselvam-vs-the-deputy-inspector-on-11-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-kumaraselvam-vs-the-deputy-inspector-on-11-december-2009\",\"name\":\"C.Kumaraselvam vs The Deputy Inspector on 11 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-24T21:39:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-kumaraselvam-vs-the-deputy-inspector-on-11-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-kumaraselvam-vs-the-deputy-inspector-on-11-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-kumaraselvam-vs-the-deputy-inspector-on-11-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.Kumaraselvam vs The Deputy Inspector on 11 December, 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":"C.Kumaraselvam vs The Deputy Inspector on 11 December, 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\/c-kumaraselvam-vs-the-deputy-inspector-on-11-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.Kumaraselvam vs The Deputy Inspector on 11 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-kumaraselvam-vs-the-deputy-inspector-on-11-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-24T21:39:18+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-kumaraselvam-vs-the-deputy-inspector-on-11-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-kumaraselvam-vs-the-deputy-inspector-on-11-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.Kumaraselvam vs The Deputy Inspector on 11 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-24T21:39:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-kumaraselvam-vs-the-deputy-inspector-on-11-december-2009"},"wordCount":2090,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-kumaraselvam-vs-the-deputy-inspector-on-11-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-kumaraselvam-vs-the-deputy-inspector-on-11-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-kumaraselvam-vs-the-deputy-inspector-on-11-december-2009","name":"C.Kumaraselvam vs The Deputy Inspector on 11 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-24T21:39:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-kumaraselvam-vs-the-deputy-inspector-on-11-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-kumaraselvam-vs-the-deputy-inspector-on-11-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-kumaraselvam-vs-the-deputy-inspector-on-11-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.Kumaraselvam vs The Deputy Inspector on 11 December, 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\/225578","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=225578"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/225578\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=225578"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=225578"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=225578"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}