{"id":228521,"date":"2009-11-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridas-vs-unknown-on-30-november-2009"},"modified":"2017-02-13T08:09:06","modified_gmt":"2017-02-13T02:39:06","slug":"haridas-vs-unknown-on-30-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridas-vs-unknown-on-30-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Haridas vs Unknown on 30 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Haridas vs Unknown on 30 November, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: S. S. Shinde<\/div>\n
                                       1\n\n          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                    NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n                  Criminal Application No. 4102\/2006\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n     1.      Haridas s\/o Kisanrao Kharbadkar,\n             aged 54 years, Occ. Agriculturist.\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n     2.      Prakash s\/o Manohar Khokle,\n             aged 27 years, Occ. Agriculturist.\n\n     3.      Jagganath @ Babarao s\/o Onkarrao\n             Khokle, aged 43 years, Occ. Agriculturist.\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n     4.      Dilip s\/o Anandrao Tidke,\n                           \n             aged 40 years, Occ. Agriculturist.\n\n     5.      Najukrao s\/o Uttamrao Modak,\n                          \n             aged 48 years, Occ. Agriculturist.\n\n     6.      Vinod s\/o Rambhau Khokle,\n             aged 39 years, Occ. Agriculturist.\n      \n\n             All sr. no. 1 to 6 above resident of\n             Sangvi, Tq. Murtijapur, Dist. Akola.\n   \n\n\n\n                                                             .. APPLICANTS\n\n                             .. Versus ..\n\n\n\n\n\n             The State of Maharashtra,\n             thr. Police Station Officer, Murtijapur,\n             Police Station, Murtijapur, Dist. Akola.\n                                                ..NON APPLICANT\n\n     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n\n     None for applicants, though served.\n     Mr. V. A. Thakare, A.P.P. for non applicant.\n     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                                     CORAM:- S. S. SHINDE, J.\n                                     DATED :- 30th NOVEMBER, 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:21:43 :::\n                                2\n\n\n     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     1.           When the matter is called out for hearing,<\/p>\n
     none appeared for the applicants. This matter was listed<\/p>\n
     for final hearing on 13.11.2009. When the matter was<\/p>\n
     called out, none appeared for the applicant. To give one<\/p>\n
     more opportunity to the counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
     applicants to represent and argue on behalf of the<\/p>\n
     applicants, the matter was adjourned today for final<\/p>\n
     hearing at 2.30 p.m. Even today, none appears for the<\/p>\n
     applicant.   This Court, on 13.11.2009 has made it clear<\/p>\n
     that in case none appears for the applicant on the<\/p>\n
     adjourned date i.e. today, this Court will proceed to<\/p>\n
     decide the application on its own merits and accordingly<\/p>\n
     the matter is taken up for final hearing.\n<\/p>\n
     2.           Brief facts of the case are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                  The applicants herein have been charge-\n<\/p>\n
     sheeted under Section 147, 148, 149, 324, 427 of the<\/p>\n
     Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3 (1) (ii) of the<\/p>\n
     Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:21:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
     Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).\n<\/p>\n
     On the basis of report lodged by one Shantabai Anandrao<\/p>\n
     Khandekar on 06.11.2004, the applicants were summoned<\/p>\n
     made to appear before the trial Court.              They appeared<\/p>\n
     before the trial Court and the case came to be fixed for<\/p>\n
     framing of charge.\n<\/p>\n
     3.          The applicants, on the date of framing of<\/p>\n
     charge, moved an application before 1st Ad hoc Additional<\/p>\n
     Sessions Judge, Akola under Section 237 of the Code of<\/p>\n
     Criminal Procedure 1973 for discharge of the accused<\/p>\n
     persons i.e. the applicants, who were charge-sheeted<\/p>\n
     under Section 3 of the Act. It was the contention of the<\/p>\n
     applicants that the alleged offence cannot be constituted<\/p>\n
     against accused person because in the report, there are<\/p>\n
     no specifications regarding what abuses are given or by<\/p>\n
     whom they are given.        It was further contention of the<\/p>\n
     applicants in the said application that if there is no<\/p>\n
     mention   of   caste   in       the   First   Information        Report,<\/p>\n
     investigation conducted on basis of said report cannot be<\/p>\n
     entertained. It was further contended that the said<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:21:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
     offence should not have been registered by non applicant<\/p>\n
     against the applicants. Therefore, it was prayed that the<\/p>\n
     applicants be discharged from the said offence especially<\/p>\n
     from offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (ii) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
                 Non    applicant-State    filed     reply       thereby<\/p>\n
     resisting the claim of the applicants and prayed for<\/p>\n
     rejection of the application.\n<\/p>\n
     4.<\/p>\n
                 The learned Special Judge, Akola was dealing<\/p>\n
     with the said trial having Sessions Trial No. 12\/2006 and<\/p>\n
     was pleased to reject the applciation at Exh.-51 filed by<\/p>\n
     applicants for their discharge under Section 3 (1) (ii) of<\/p>\n
     the Act. Hence, this application is filed by the applicants.\n<\/p>\n
     5.          On perusal of para 9 of the said application,<\/p>\n
     the applicants have taken a ground that neither caste of<\/p>\n
     the complainant nor the caste of accused was mentioned<\/p>\n
     in the report. Therefore, the ratio laid down by this Court<\/p>\n
     in the case of Manohar ..vs.. State of Maharashtra<\/p>\n
     ALL    MR     (Crimes)        2602,   the      prosecution           is<\/p>\n
     unsustainable.    In para 11, it is further stated that it<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:21:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
     seems that caste is mentioned as “Buddha” and it was<\/p>\n
     argued before the trial Court that “Buddha” is the name<\/p>\n
     of religion and not caste. Therefore, it was prayed that<\/p>\n
     unless the caste is mentioned in the First Information<\/p>\n
     report, the said First Information Report cannot be<\/p>\n
     investigated further and no allegation in the said First<\/p>\n
     Information Report can be sustained.        In para 13, it is<\/p>\n
     further stated that there are no specific allegations in the<\/p>\n
     First Information Report and, therefore, provisions of<\/p>\n
     Section 3 (1) (ii) of the Act are not attracted.\n<\/p>\n
     6.          On careful perusal of the averments made in<\/p>\n
     the application, it appears that the only ground taken in<\/p>\n
     the application is that caste of accused or complainant is<\/p>\n
     not mentioned in the First Information Report and no<\/p>\n
     specific allegations are made in the First Information<\/p>\n
     Report so as to attract provisions of Section 3 (1) (ii) of<\/p>\n
     the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     7.          The learned A.P.P. for the State invited my<\/p>\n
     attention to the contents of the First Information Report<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:21:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
     and submitted that the allegations in the First Information<\/p>\n
     Report clearly attracts provisions of the Act and submitted<\/p>\n
     that the trial Court has rightly rejected the application for<\/p>\n
     discharge.    Learned A.P.P. invited my attention to the<\/p>\n
     reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of<\/p>\n
     Ashabai      Machindra         Adhagale   ..vs..      State        of<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra and ors; (2009) 3 Supreme Court<\/p>\n
     Cases 789 and submitted that the point raised in this<\/p>\n
     application is no more res integra and the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
     the said judgment has held that merely non mentioning of<\/p>\n
     the caste of the accused or complainant, as the case may<\/p>\n
     be, may not itself be a ground to quash First Information<\/p>\n
     Report by exercising powers under Section 482 Code of<\/p>\n
     Criminal Procedure.       Learned A.P.P further invited my<\/p>\n
     attention to the contents of the First Information Report<\/p>\n
     and   submitted    that    this   Court   may     not     exercise<\/p>\n
     jurisdiction under Article 482 of the Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
     Procedure to quash the First Information Report. I have<\/p>\n
     perused contents of the application and provisions of<\/p>\n
     Section 3(1) (ii) of the Act.      Section 3(1)(ii) reads as<\/p>\n
     under:-\n<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:21:43 :::<\/span>
\n                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
          “3.     Punishments        for         offences         of<\/p>\n
          atrocities.- (1) Whoever, not being a member<\/p>\n
          of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-\n<\/p>\n
          (i)    …..\n<\/p>\n
          (ii)   acts with intent to cause injury, insult or<\/p>\n
          annoyance to any member of a Scheduled
\n          Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by dumping
\n          excreta, waste matter, carcasses or an other<\/p>\n
          obnoxious      substance   in    his    premises         or
\n          neighbourhood;”\n<\/p>\n
     8.          On careful perusal of the annexures to the<\/p>\n
     application, it appears that in pursuance to registration of<\/p>\n
     the First Information Report statement of the witnesses<\/p>\n
     have been recorded and at the stage when matter was<\/p>\n
     fixed for framing charge, the person filed application for<\/p>\n
     discharge before the trial Court, which came to be<\/p>\n
     rejected.\n<\/p>\n
     9.          On careful perusal of the complaint\/First<\/p>\n
     Information Report it clearly reveals that there was<\/p>\n
     assault by applicants on he complainant as well as<\/p>\n
     relatives of the complainant. Therefore, bare perusal of<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:21:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
     the First Information Report would show that the said<\/p>\n
     First Information Report is lodged with specific allegations,<\/p>\n
     therefore, the first ground taken in the application that<\/p>\n
     there are no specific allegations in the First Information<\/p>\n
     Report, is required to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
     10.          The another contention, which is taken in the<\/p>\n
     application that no caste of the applicants or complainant<\/p>\n
     is mentioned in the First Information Report, the said point<\/p>\n
     is no more res integra and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the<\/p>\n
     case of Ashabai Machindra Adhagale (supra) in para<\/p>\n
     10 to 12 has held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
           “10.           It needs no reiteration that the FIR<\/p>\n
           is not expected to be an encyclopedia.               As
\n           rightly contended by learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
           appellant whether the accused belongs to
\n           Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe can be
\n           gone    into     when     the   matter    is    being
\n           investigated.      it is to be noted that under<\/p>\n
           Section 23(1) of the Act, the Scheduled
\n           Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
\n           Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (in short “the Rules)
\n           have been framed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:21:43 :::<\/span>
\n                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
           11.        Rule 7 deals with the investigating
\n           officer, Under Rule 7, investigation has to be<\/p>\n
           done by an officer not below the rank of<\/p>\n
           Deputy Superintendent of Police.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           12.        After ascertaining the facts during
\n           the course of investigation it is open to the<\/p>\n
           investigating   officer   to   record   that     the
\n           accused either belongs to or does not belong
\n           to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. After<\/p>\n
           final opinion is formed, it is open to the court
\n           to either accept the same or take cognizance.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Even if the charge-sheet is filed at the time of
\n           consideration of the charge, it is open to the<\/p>\n
           accused to bring to the notice of the court
\n           that the materials do not show that the
\n           accused does not belong to Scheduled Caste<\/p>\n
           or Scheduled Tribe. Even if charge is framed
\n           at the time of trial materials can be placed to<\/p>\n
           show that the accused either belongs or does
\n           not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled<\/p>\n
           Tribe.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     11.         On bare perusal of para nos. 10 to 12 of the<\/p>\n
     judgment of the Apex Court, it appears that the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
     Apex Court has considered the rival contentions and held<\/p>\n
     that the First Information Report is not expected to be an<\/p>\n
     encyclopedia. Under Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:21:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                 10<\/span><\/p>\n
     the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rule 1995,<\/p>\n
     investigation has to be done by officer not below the rank<\/p>\n
     of Dy. Superintendent of Police and after ascertaining the<\/p>\n
     facts, during the course of investigation, it is open for the<\/p>\n
     Investigating Officer to record that the accused either<\/p>\n
     belongs to or does not belong to Scheduled Caste or<\/p>\n
     Scheduled Tribe. After final opinion is formed, it is open to<\/p>\n
     the Court either to accept the same or to take cognizance.\n<\/p>\n
     Even if charge is framed at the time of trial materials can<\/p>\n
     be placed to show that the accused either belongs or<\/p>\n
     does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.\n<\/p>\n
     12.         Thus,   what        follows   from    the      aforesaid<\/p>\n
     judgment of the Apex Court, it is not mandated in all the<\/p>\n
     provisions under the Act that it is mandatory to mention<\/p>\n
     caste of the accused or complainant, as the case may be,<\/p>\n
     in First Information Report\/complaint.        In my considered<\/p>\n
     view, the present applciation deserves to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
     13.         In view of above, the application is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
     Rule discharged. Interim order stands vacated.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:21:43 :::<\/span>
\n                              11<\/span><\/p>\n
                It is made clear that the observations made in<\/p>\n
     this judgment will not come in the way of the applicants<\/p>\n
     while facing the trial. These observations are only for the<\/p>\n
     purposes of deciding the present application.\n<\/p>\n
                                       JUDGE<\/p>\n
     kahale         <\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:21:43 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Haridas vs Unknown on 30 November, 2009 Bench: S. S. Shinde 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 4102\/2006 1. Haridas s\/o Kisanrao Kharbadkar, aged 54 years, Occ. Agriculturist. 2. Prakash s\/o Manohar Khokle, aged 27 years, Occ. Agriculturist. 3. Jagganath @ Babarao s\/o […]<\/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-228521","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHaridas vs Unknown on 30 November, 2009 - 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\/haridas-vs-unknown-on-30-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Haridas vs Unknown on 30 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridas-vs-unknown-on-30-november-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-13T02:39:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haridas-vs-unknown-on-30-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haridas-vs-unknown-on-30-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Haridas vs Unknown on 30 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-13T02:39:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haridas-vs-unknown-on-30-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1606,\"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\\\/haridas-vs-unknown-on-30-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haridas-vs-unknown-on-30-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haridas-vs-unknown-on-30-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Haridas vs Unknown on 30 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-13T02:39:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haridas-vs-unknown-on-30-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haridas-vs-unknown-on-30-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haridas-vs-unknown-on-30-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Haridas vs Unknown on 30 November, 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":"Haridas vs Unknown on 30 November, 2009 - 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\/haridas-vs-unknown-on-30-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Haridas vs Unknown on 30 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridas-vs-unknown-on-30-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-13T02:39:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridas-vs-unknown-on-30-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridas-vs-unknown-on-30-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Haridas vs Unknown on 30 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-13T02:39:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridas-vs-unknown-on-30-november-2009"},"wordCount":1606,"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\/haridas-vs-unknown-on-30-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridas-vs-unknown-on-30-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridas-vs-unknown-on-30-november-2009","name":"Haridas vs Unknown on 30 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-13T02:39:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridas-vs-unknown-on-30-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridas-vs-unknown-on-30-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridas-vs-unknown-on-30-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Haridas vs Unknown on 30 November, 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\/228521","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=228521"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228521\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228521"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228521"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228521"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}