{"id":232852,"date":"2008-01-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-01-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunita-jain-vs-pawan-kumar-jain-ors-on-25-january-2008"},"modified":"2016-03-03T11:14:30","modified_gmt":"2016-03-03T05:44:30","slug":"sunita-jain-vs-pawan-kumar-jain-ors-on-25-january-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunita-jain-vs-pawan-kumar-jain-ors-on-25-january-2008","title":{"rendered":"Sunita Jain vs Pawan Kumar Jain & Ors on 25 January, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sunita Jain vs Pawan Kumar Jain & Ors on 25 January, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: C Thakker<\/div>\n
Bench: C.K. Thakker, D.K. Jain<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  174 of 2008\n\nPETITIONER:\nSUNITA JAIN\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPAWAN KUMAR JAIN & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/01\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nC.K. THAKKER & D.K. JAIN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\nARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 1362 OF 2004
\nC.K. THAKKER, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\t\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tThe present appeal is filed against
\nthe judgment and order dated October 30, 2003
\nin Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 1442 of 1999
\npassed by the High Court of Judicature at
\nJabalpur. By the said order, the High Court
\nallowed the application filed by the
\nrespondents-accused under Section 482 of the
\nCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
\nreferred to as the Code) and quashed criminal
\nproceedings initiated by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tTo appreciate the controversy raised
\nin the present appeal, few relevant facts may
\nbe noted.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tThe appellant herein is the wife of
\nPawan Kumar Jain-respondent No.1. Respondent
\nNos. 2 and 3, namely, Poolchand Jain and Smt.
\nSarojbai Jain are parents of respondent No.1
\nand father-in-law and mother-in-law
\nrespectively of the appellant. It is the case
\nof the appellant that she married to respondent
\nNo.1 on July 8, 1989. After the marriage, she
\nremained with her husband for few days at
\nJabalpur and during that period, her husband
\nand in-laws harassed her as her father had not
\ngiven sufficient amount of dowry.  They taunted
\nthe appellant saying that had the respondent
\nNo.1 married to any other lady, they would have
\nreceived dowry amount of Rs.8-10 lakhs. On
\nSeptember 5, 1990, the appellant gave birth to
\ntwins. According to the appellant, the greed of
\nthe respondents for dowry was so much that in
\n1991, the first respondent went to the extent
\nof getting quality of gold ornaments given by
\nher father tested by a Goldsmith which were
\nfound to be of good quality. It is also the
\ncase of the appellant that on December 14,
\n1991, marriage of the appellants younger
\nsister was solemnized at Sagar and respondent
\nNo.1 and his father had come to attend it. At
\nthat time also, the respondents demanded car,
\ncolour TV and more gold. When the demand was
\nnot met with, the first respondent attacked the
\nappellant and caused injury to her. In March,
\n1992, the 1st respondent took the appellant
\nwith him and kept her with his parents at
\nJabalpur. Even after giving assurance that she
\nwill not be ill-treated, she was physically and
\nmentally tortured for dowry. The appellant
\ninformed her father that her husband and in-
\nlaws were demanding dowry from her and her
\nhusband assaulted her and her children had been
\ntaken away and they were not allowed to see the
\nmother (appellant).\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tThe appellant stated that Harish
\nChandra and Daya Chandra Jain, who were known
\nto her father, learnt about the miserable
\ncondition of the appellant and both of them
\ninformed the father of the appellant in
\nSeptember, 1993 about the plight of the
\nappellant at her in-laws. One Ram Ratan Jain,
\nwho was also knowing the appellant, persuaded
\nthe respondents to behave properly but in vain.
\nIn May, 1995, again the appellant was assaulted
\nand severely beaten.  She was also compelled to
\nsign a document purported to be a compromise
\ndeed between the appellant and the 1st
\nrespondent. The appellant lodged a complaint in
\nPolice Station Civil Lines, Raipur on May 10,
\n1998 which was registered as Crime No. 738 of
\n1998. Respondent No.1 was called at the Police
\nStation and he executed a writing that he would
\nnot ill treat the appellant. The 1st respondent
\nalso gave assurance that he will not use any
\nwriting against the appellant said to have been
\nsigned by her.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tIn July, 1995, the 1st respondent was
\ntransferred from Raipur to Raigarh and in spite
\nof the request by the appellant, she was not
\ntaken by her husband along with him. On March
\n8, 1996, the 1st respondent sent a notice
\nthrough advocate to father of the appellant
\nstating that he had filed a divorce petition.
\nHe further stated that he was ready to pay
\nmaintenance to the appellant. On 17th March,
\n1996, the appellants father brought the
\nappellant to Sagar. The appellant had to go
\nwith her father as the 1st respondent did not
\ntake her with him and had also issued notice
\nfor divorce. On March 20, 1996, the appellant
\nlodged First Information Report (FIR) in Women
\nPolice Station which was registered as Crime
\nNo. 6 of 1996 giving details about physical and
\nmental torture and dowry demands by respondent
\nNo.1 and his family members. According to the
\nappellant, on July 10, 1996, non-bailable
\nwarrants were issued. In the High Court,
\nhowever, the 1st respondent made a statement
\nthrough his advocate that parties had decided
\nto live together and had settled the dispute
\namicably. On that statement being made, bail
\nwas granted to respondent No.1 and his parents.
\nOn September 28, 1996, challan was filed
\nagainst the respondents for offences punishable
\nunder Sections 498A, 506, 406 read with Section
\n34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and also under
\nSections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
\n1961. On January 30, 1997, charges were framed
\nagainst respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (husband,
\nfather-in-law and mother-in-law) and also
\nagainst brother and sister of respondent No.1.
\nAll the accused challenged the action of
\nframing of charge against them in the High
\nCourt by filing a Revision Petition. The High
\nCourt vide its order dated October 22, 1997,
\npartly allowed the revision and quashed charges
\nagainst brother and sister of respondent No.1.
\nThe High Court, however, held that so far as
\nother respondents were concerned, charges could
\nnot be quashed and dismissed the petition.
\nBeing aggrieved by the said order, the
\nrespondents approached this Court by filing
\nSpecial Leave Petition but even this Court
\ndismissed the SLP on February 23, 1998. The
\nrespondents then once again filed a petition in
\nthe High Court by invoking Section 482 of the
\nCode on February 23, 1999. The appellant filed
\nher reply to the said petition. The High Court
\nvide the impugned order, allowed the petition
\nholding that there was abuse of process of law
\nby the appellant in initiating criminal
\nproceedings. The proceedings were, therefore,
\nquashed. The said order is challenged in the
\npresent appeal.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tNotice was issued by this Court on
\nApril 5, 2004. Several adjournments were taken
\nby the parties so that the matter can amicably
\nbe settled.  The matter, however, could not be
\nsettled and was ordered to be posted for final
\nhearing.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tWe have heard learned counsel for the
\nparties.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tThe learned counsel for the appellant
\nsubmitted that grave and serious error has been
\ncommitted by the High Court in quashing the
\nproceedings. He submitted that once the
\nproceedings had been initiated in accordance
\nwith law and the Court was satisfied that prima
\nfacie case was made out, charge was framed and
\nthe said action was upheld by the High Court as
\nwell as by this Court, it was not open to the
\nHigh Court to quash the proceedings on the
\nground that there was abuse of process of
\nCourt. Such an order could not have been made
\nby the High Court in the light of the order
\npassed by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tIt was also submitted that the High
\nCourt has virtually reviewed its earlier order.
\nThere is no power of review in a Court
\nexercising criminal jurisdiction under the Code
\nand such order is illegal and without
\njurisdiction. A grievance was also made that
\nonce this Court upheld framing of charge
\nagainst respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the High Court
\ncould not have held that the proceedings were
\ninitiated mala fide or there was abuse of
\nprocess of Court. Such order, in the teeth of
\norder passed by this Court, was totally
\nillegal, unwarranted and must be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tThe learned counsel for respondent
\nNos. 1 to 3 supported the order of the High
\nCourt. He submitted that considering the
\ntotality of facts and circumstances, the High
\nCourt passed the impugned order which is
\nstrictly in consonance with law. It was urged
\nthat taking into account, overall conduct of
\nthe appellant and actions taken by her against
\nthe 1st respondent-husband and his family
\nmembers in the light of subsequent facts which
\nwere brought to the notice of the Court, the
\nCourt was satisfied that it was in the interest
\nof justice to quash the proceedings. Such an
\naction cannot be said to be illegal or
\nimproper. It was also stated that two children
\nwere born in 1990 but she had never taken
\ninterest nor even seen them after 1990.  Both
\nthe children are with the respondents and they
\nare very happy. According to the respondents,
\nthere was no demand of dowry either by
\nrespondent No.1 or by his family members and a
\ntotally false and concocted complaint was filed
\nagainst them and the Court was convinced that
\nthe action had been taken by the appellant to
\nharass the respondents and the proceedings were
\nliable to be quashed. Finally, it was submitted
\nthat this Court may not exercise equitable
\njurisdiction under Article 136 of the
\nConstitution in favour of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tHaving given anxious consideration to
\nthe rival submissions of the parties, in our
\nview, the High Court was wrong in quashing the
\nproceedings. From the facts noted hereinabove,
\nit is clear that a complaint was lodged by the
\npetitioner against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as
\nalso against other accused for offences
\npunishable under Sections 498A, 342 and 406,
\nIPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition
\nAct. The trial Court satisfied that prima facie
\ncase was made out and accordingly charges were
\nframed against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as well
\nas against other accused. In a petition
\nchallenging that action, the High Court partly
\nallowed the petition vide its order dated
\nOctober 22, 1997 and quashed charges against
\nbrother-in-law and sister-in-law of the
\nappellant herein but upheld the order of
\nframing of charge against the remaining
\nrespondents i.e. respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
\nRespondent Nos. 1 to 3 challenged the order of
\nthe High Court by approaching this Court. It
\nwas registered as Special Leave Petition (Crl.)
\nNo. 509 of 1998. On December 23, 1998, this
\nCourt dismissed the special leave petition by
\npassing the following order:\n<\/p>\n
 \t\tWe are not inclined to
\ninterfere with the order of the High
\nCourt dated 22.10.1997 framing charges
\nagainst the petitioner. The SLP (Crl.)
\nNo. 509\/98 is dismissed. So far as
\norder dated 28.11.97 is concerned
\nrefusing to transfer the proceedings,
\nissue notice. Pending proceedings
\nbefore the C.J.M. Sagar, is stayed.\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tIt is thus, clear that all the Courts
\nincluding this Court were of the view that
\nthere was prima facie case for framing of
\ncharge against the respondents herein. It
\nappears that thereafter the parties tried for
\namicable settlement of the matter again. The
\nCourt was also informed that the parties had
\nalmost settled the matter and negotiations were
\ngoing on with regard to amount to be paid to
\nthe wife. The respondent No.1-husband offered
\nRs.7.50 lakhs towards full and final
\nsettlement.  According to the respondents, the
\npetitioner-wife insisted for more amount. The
\nefforts of settlement thus failed. It has also
\ncome on record that appellant-wife filed a suit
\nagainst the husband for compensation of Rs.20
\nlakhs in the Court of First Addl. Judge, Sagar.\n<\/p>\n
A Revision Petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 <\/span><\/p>\n
to 3 was allowed by the High Court and it was
\nheld that Sagar Court had no territorial
\njurisdiction to entertain the suit.  After the
\norder passed by this Court in August, 1998,
\nrespondent Nos. 1 to 3 again moved the High
\nCourt under Section 482 of the Code for
\nquashing of criminal proceedings. The High
\nCourt in the impugned order noted that earlier
\nthe respondents had approached the Court
\nagainst framing of charge and the said action
\nwas not interfered with even by the Supreme
\nCourt.  But observing that a Court of law
\ncannot be expected to remain a silent spectator
\nand cannot be made a tool of gratifying
\npersonal vengeance of any party, it held that
\nthe case in hand was a fit one to exercise
\ninherent power under Section 482 and
\naccordingly the proceedings were ordered to be
\nquashed. The Court, for coming to the said
\nconclusion, relied upon certain decisions of
\nthis Court.\n<\/p>\n
14.\t\tIn Madhu Limaye v. State of
\nMaharashtra,<\/a> (1977) 4 SCC 551, an interlocutory
\norder was passed by a Court subordinate to the
\nHigh Court against which Revision Petition was
\nfiled. It was contended that sub-section (2) of
\nSection 397 barred exercise of revisional
\npowers in relation to any interlocutory order
\npassed in an appeal, inquiry, trial or in any
\nother proceeding.  Since the order was
\ninterlocutory in nature, revision petition was
\nnot maintainable. This Court held that even
\nwhere an order cannot be challenged in
\nrevision, inherent powers under Section 482 of
\nthe Code could be exercised by the High Court
\nin appropriate cases.\n<\/p>\n
 15.\t\tThis Court stated:\n<\/p>\n
     On a plain\t reading  of Section
\n482, however, it would follow that
\nnothing  in\t the Code,  which  would
\ninclude sub-section(2)of\tSection 397
\nalso,  shall  be  deemed to limit or
\naffect  the inherent powers of the
\nHigh Court.  But, if we were to say
\nthat the said  bar is not to operate
\nin the exercise of the  inherent power
\nat  all,\t it will be setting at naught
\none  of\t the limitations imposed
\nupon the exercise\t of  the  revisional
\npowers.\t In such a situation, what
\nis-the harmonious way out? In our
\nopinion, a happy solution of this
\nproblem would be to say that the bar
\nprovided in sub-section (2) of Section
\n397 operates only in exercise of the
\nrevisional power of the High Court,
\nmeaning thereby that the High Court
\nwill have no power of revision in
\nrelation to any interlocutory order.
\nThen in accordance with one of the
\nother\tprinciples enunciated above,
\nthe inherent power will come into
\nplay, there being no other provision
\nin the Code for the redress of the
\ngrievance of the aggrieved party. But
\nthen, if the order assailed is purely
\nof an interlocutory character which
\ncould be corrected in exercise of the
\nrevisional power of the High Court
\nunder the 1898 Code, the High\tCourt
\nwill refuse\t to exercise its inherent
\npower.  But in  case\t the impugned
\norder clearly brings about a situation
\nwhich is  an abuse  of  the process of
\nthe Court or for the purpose  of
\nsecuring the ends of justice
\ninterference by the High  Court is
\nabsolutely necessary, then nothing
\ncontained in Section 397(2) can limit
\nor affect the exercise  of  the
\ninherent power  by the High Court. But
\nsuch cases would be few and far
\nbetween.\t The High Court must exercise
\nthe inherent power very sparingly. <\/p>\n
16.\t\tThe High Court also referred to G.V.
\nRao v. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors.,<\/a> (2000) 3 SCC 693
\nwherein this Court considered the object
\nunderlying marriage as sacred ceremony and to
\nend the dispute amicably between the parties by
\npondering over differences and
\nmisunderstandings. It was observed that the
\nparties should not litigate by instituting
\ncriminal cases which would take long time and
\nin that process, lose their young days in
\nchasing their cases in different Courts. The
\nCourt, therefore, observed that such matters
\nshould be settled immediately.\n<\/p>\n
17.\t\tIn B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of
\nHaryana & Anr.,<\/a> (2003) 4 SCC 675, proceedings
\nfor offences punishable under Sections 498A and
\n406, IPC were quashed. It was observed that
\nSection 320 of the Code relating to
\ncompounding of offences would not limit the
\npower of the High Court under Section 482 of
\nthe Code and if the High Court is satisfied
\nthat the proceedings were initiated mala fide
\nand there is abuse of process of law, they can
\nbe quashed. Referring to earlier judgments, the
\nCourt held that there are special features in
\nmatrimonial matters and it is the duty of the
\nCourt to encourage genuine settlement of
\nmatrimonial disputes.\n<\/p>\n
 18.\t\tDiscussing the underlying object of
\ninserting Chapter XXA (Section 498A) in the
\nIndian Penal Code, the Court stated:
\n \tThere is no doubt that the object
\nof introducing Chapter XX-A containing
\nSection 498-A in the Indian Penal Code
\nwas to prevent torture to a woman by
\nher husband or by relatives of her
\nhusband. Section 498-A was added with
\na view to punishing a husband and his
\nrelatives who harass or torture the
\nwife to coerce her or her relatives to
\nsatisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The
\nhypertechnical view would be
\ncounterproductive and would act
\nagainst interests of women and against
\nthe object for which this provision
\nwas added. There is every likelihood
\nthat non-exercise of inherent power to
\nquash the proceedings to meet the ends
\nof justice would prevent women from
\nsettling earlier. That is not the
\nobject of Chapter XX-A of the Indian
\nPenal Code.\n<\/p>\n
19.\t\tIn spite of best efforts by the
\nlearned counsel for the respondents, we are
\nunable to persuade ourselves to hold that after
\nthe order passed by this Court dismissing
\nSpecial Leave Petition upholding framing of
\ncharge against respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the High
\nCourt could have exercised power under Section
\n482 of the Code quashing criminal proceedings
\ninitiated by the appellant. The High Court
\nobserved that even after dismissal of SLP by
\nthis Court, it was open for the Court to
\nconsider the prayer of the accused to quash
\nprosecution in exercise of inherent powers
\nbecause the extraordinary jurisdiction under
\nSection 482 of the Code may be exercised at any
\nstage.\n<\/p>\n
20.\t\tTo us, the learned counsel for the
\nappellant is right that in substance and in
\nreality, the High Court has exercised power of
\nreview not conferred by the Code on a Criminal
\nCourt. Section 362 of the Code does not empower
\na Criminal Court to alter its judgment.  It
\nreads thus:\n<\/p>\n
362. Court not to alter judgment:-
\nSave as otherwise provided by this
\nCode or by any other law for the time
\nbeing in force, no Court, when it has
\nsigned its judgment or order disposing
\nof a case, shall alter or review the
\nsame except to correct a clerical or
\narithmetical error.\n<\/p>\n
 \t\t\t\t(emphasis supplied) <\/p>\n
21.\t\tThe section makes it clear that a
\nCourt cannot alter or review its judgment or
\nfinal order after it is signed except to
\ncorrect clerical or arithmetical error. The
\nscheme of the Code, in our judgment, is clear
\nthat as a general rule, as soon as the judgment
\nis pronounced or order is made by a Court, it
\nbecomes functus officio (ceases to have control
\nover the case) and has no power to review,
\noverride, alter or interfere with it.\n<\/p>\n
22.\t\tNo doubt, the section starts with the
\nwords Save as otherwise provided by this
\nCode. Thus, if the Code provides for
\nalteration, such power can be exercised. For
\ninstance, sub-section (2) of Section 127.  But
\nin absence of express power, alteration or
\nmodification of judgment or order is not
\npermissible.\n<\/p>\n
23.\t\tIt is also well settled that power of
\nreview is not an inherent power and must be
\nconferred on a Court by a specific or express
\nprovision to that effect. [Vide Patel Narshi
\nThakershi & Ors. v. Shri Pradyumansinghji
\nArjunsinghji,<\/a> (1971) 3 SCC 844] No power of
\nreview has been conferred by the Code on a
\nCriminal Court and it cannot review an order
\npassed or judgment pronounced.\n<\/p>\n
24.\t\tIn Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh
\nBajwa & Ors.,<\/a> (2001) 1 SCC 169, this Court held
\nthat a High Court has no jurisdiction to alter
\nor review its own judgment or order except to
\nthe extent of correcting any clerical or
\narithmetical error. It deprecated the practice
\nof filing Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions
\nafter disposal of main matters and issuance of
\nfresh directions in such petitions.\n<\/p>\n
 25.\t\tThe Court said;\n<\/p>\n
  \tSection 362 of the Code mandates
\nthat no court, when it has signed its
\njudgment or final order disposing of a
\ncase shall alter or review the same
\nexcept to correct a clerical or an
\narithmetical error. The section is
\nbased on an acknowledged principle of
\nlaw that once a matter is finally
\ndisposed of by a court, the said court
\nin the absence of a specific statutory
\nprovision becomes functus officio and
\ndisentitled to entertain a fresh
\nprayer for the same relief unless the
\nformer order of final disposal is set
\naside by a court of competent
\njurisdiction in a manner prescribed by
\nlaw. The court becomes functus officio
\nthe moment the official order
\ndisposing of a case is signed. Such an
\norder cannot be altered except to the
\nextent of correcting a clerical or an
\narithmetical error.\n<\/p>\n
26.\t\tIn the case on hand, charges were
\nframed against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the
\nsaid order was affirmed by the High Court and
\nby this Court. It is no doubt true that
\nthereafter there was a talk of settlement
\nbetween the parties which could not be
\nmaterialised. It is also true that the
\nappellant filed a suit for compensation of
\nRs.20 lakhs against the husband and in-laws. In
\nour considered opinion, however, that would not
\nconfer jurisdiction on the High Court to quash
\ncriminal proceedings when the action of framing
\nof charge against the respondents had been
\nupheld by this Court.  The order impugned in
\nthe present appeal is thus clearly illegal,
\nimproper, contrary to law and deserves to be
\nset aside.\n<\/p>\n
27.\t\tThe learned counsel for the appellant
\ncontended that virtually the High Court sat
\nover the decision of this Court and exercised
\nappellate power by upsetting the order of the
\nCourt of framing charge against the
\nrespondents. The counsel, in this connection,
\nreferred to Jharia s\/o Mania v. State of
\nRajasthan & Anr., (1983) 4 SCC 7. In that case,
\nthe accused was convicted by a Sessions Court
\nfor an offence punishable under Section 302
\nread with Section 34, IPC.  The order of
\nconviction and sentence was confirmed by the
\nHigh Court as well as by this Court.
\nThereafter, a substantive petition under
\nArticle 32 of the Constitution was instituted
\nby the accused for issuance of a Writ of
\nMandamus directing the State to forbear from
\ngiving effect to the judgment of all Courts
\nincluding this Court. A declaration was also
\nsought that the conviction was illegal and his
\ndetention in jail was without the authority of
\nlaw and violative of Fundamental Rights.\n<\/p>\n
28.\t\tDismissing the petition, this Court
\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n
      We fail to appreciate the
\npropriety of asking for a declaration
\nin these proceedings under Article 32
\nthat conviction of the petitioner by
\nthe High Court for an offence
\npunishable under Section 302 read with
\nSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code is
\nillegal, particularly when this court
\nhas declined to grant special leave
\nunder Article 136. Nor can the
\npetitioner be heard to say that his
\ndetention in jail amounts to
\ndeprivation of the fundamental right
\nto life and liberty without following
\nthe procedure established by law in
\nviolation of Article 21 read with
\nArticles 14 and 19. When a special
\nleave petition is assigned to the
\nlearned Judges sitting in a Bench,
\nthey constitute the Supreme Court and
\nthere is a finality to their judgment
\nwhich cannot be upset in these
\nproceedings under Article 32.
\nObviously, the Supreme Court cannot
\nissue a writ, direction or order to
\nitself in respect of any judicial
\nproceedings and the learned Judges
\nconstituting the Bench are not
\namenable to the writ jurisdiction of
\nthis court.\n<\/p>\n
29.\t\tEven if we may not go to the extent
\nthat the High Court ventured to sit over the
\norder passed by this Court in quashing the
\nproceedings, in our considered opinion, on the
\nfacts and in the circumstances of the case, the
\nHigh Court was not justified in invoking
\nSection 482 of the Code and in quashing
\nprosecution against the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
30.\t\tMoreover, it is well-settled that
\ninherent power under Section 482 of the Code
\nmust be exercised in rarest of rare cases.
\nBefore more than four decades in the leading
\ncase of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab,<\/a> (1960) 3
\nSCR 388, this Court stated:\n<\/p>\n
     It is well-established that the
\ninherent jurisdiction of the High
\nCourt can be exercised to quash
\nproceedings in a proper case either to
\nprevent the abuse of the process of
\nany court or otherwise to secure the
\nends of justice. Ordinarily criminal
\nproceedings instituted against an
\naccused person must be tried under the
\nprovisions of the Code, and the High
\nCourt would be reluctant to interfere
\nwith the said proceedings at an
\ninterlocutory stage. It is not
\npossible, desirable or expedient to
\nlay down any inflexible rule which
\nwould govern the exercise of this
\ninherent jurisdiction. However, we may
\nindicate some categories of cases
\nwhere the inherent jurisdiction can
\nand should be exercised for quashing
\nthe proceedings. There may be cases
\nwhere it may be possible for the High
\nCourt to take the view that the
\ninstitution or continuance of criminal
\nproceedings against an accused person
\nmay amount to the abuse of the process
\nof the Court or that the quashing of
\nthe impugned proceedings would secure
\nthe ends of justice. If the criminal
\nproceeding in question is in respect
\nof an offence alleged to have been
\ncommitted by an accused person and it
\nmanifestly appears that there is a
\nlegal bar against the institution or
\ncontinuance of the said proceeding the
\nHigh Court would be justified in
\nquashing the proceeding on that
\nground. Absence of the requisite
\nsanction may, for instance, furnish
\ncases under this category. Cases may
\nalso arise where the allegations in
\nthe first information report or the
\ncomplaint, even if they are taken at
\ntheir face value and accepted in their
\nentirety, do not constitute the
\noffence alleged; in such cases no
\nquestion of appreciating evidence
\narises; it is a matter merely of
\nlooking at the complaint or the first
\ninformation report to decide whether
\nthe offence alleged is disclosed or
\nnot. In such cases it would be
\nlegitimate for the High Court to hold
\nthat it would be manifestly unjust to
\nallow the process of the criminal
\ncourt to be issued against the accused
\nperson. A third category of cases in
\nwhich the inherent jurisdiction of the
\nHigh Court can be successfully invoked
\nmay also arise. In cases falling under
\nthis category the allegations made
\nagainst the accused person do
\nconstitute offence alleged but there
\nis either no legal evidence adduced in
\nsupport of the case or evidence
\nadduced clearly or manifestly fails to
\nprove the charge. In dealing with this
\nclass of cases it is important to bear
\nin mind the distinction between a case
\nwhere there is no legal evidence or
\nwhere th ere is evidence which is
\nmanifestly and clearly inconsistent
\nwith the accusation made and cases
\nwhere there is legal evidence which on
\nits appreciation may or may not
\nsupport the accusation in question. In
\nexercising its jurisdiction under
\nSection 561-A the High Court would not
\nembark upon an enquiry as to whether
\nthe evidence in question is reliable
\nor not. That is the function of the
\ntrial Magistrate, and ordinarily it
\nwould not be open to any party to
\ninvoke the High Courts inherent
\njurisdiction and contend that on a
\nreasonable appreciation of the
\nevidence the accusation made against
\nthe accused would not be sustained.
\n(emphasis supplied)\n<\/p>\n
31.\t \tYet, in another important decision in
\nState of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,<\/a> (1992) Supp 1
\nSCC 355, the Court referred to a number of
\nleading decisions on the point and laid down
\nthe following principles for exercising power
\nof quashing criminal proceedings.
\n(1)   Where the allegations made in
\nthe first information report or the
\ncomplaint, even if they are taken at
\ntheir face value and accepted in
\ntheir entirety do not prima facie
\nconstitute any offence or make out a
\ncase against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
(2)   Where the allegations in the
\nfirst information report and other
\nmaterials, if any, accompanying the
\nFIR do not disclose a cognizable
\noffence, justifying an investigation
\nby police officers under Section
\n156(1) of the Code except under an
\norder of a Magistrate within the
\npurview of Section 155(2) of the
\nCode.\n<\/p>\n
(3) Where the uncontroverted
\nallegations made in the FIR or
\ncomplaint and the evidence collected
\nin support of the same do not
\ndisclose the commission of any
\noffence and make out a case against
\nthe accused.\n<\/p>\n
(4)   Where, the allegations in the
\nFIR do not constitute a cognizable
\noffence but constitute only a non-
\ncognizable offence, no investigation
\nis permitted by a police officer
\nwithout an order of a Magistrate as
\ncontemplated under Section 155(2) of
\nthe Code.\n<\/p>\n
(5)   Where the allegations made in
\nthe FIR or complaint are so absurd
\nand inherently improbable on the
\nbasis of which no prudent person can
\never reach a just conclusion that
\nthere is sufficient ground for
\nproceeding against the accused.
\n(6)   Where there is an express legal
\nbar engrafted in any of the
\nprovisions of the Code or the
\nconcerned Act (under which a criminal
\nproceeding is instituted) to the
\ninstitution and continuance of the
\nproceedings and\/or where there is a
\nspecific provision in the Code or the
\nconcerned Act, providing efficacious
\nredress for the grievance of the
\naggrieved party.\n<\/p>\n
(7)   Where a criminal proceeding is
\nmanifestly attended with mala fide
\nand\/or where the proceeding is
\nmaliciously instituted with an
\nulterior motive for wreaking
\nvengeance on the accused and with a
\nview to spite him due to private and
\npersonal grudge.\n<\/p>\n
32.\t\tSpeaking for the Court, Pandian, J.
\nstated:\n<\/p>\n
\t(T)he power of quashing a
\ncriminal proceeding should be
\nexercised very sparingly and with
\ncircumspection and that too in the
\nrarest of rare cases; that the Court
\nwill not be justified in embarking
\nupon an enquiry as to the reliability
\nor genuineness or otherwise of the
\nallegations made in the FIR or the
\ncomplaint and that the extraordinary
\nor inherent powers do not confer an
\narbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to
\nact according to its whim or caprice.<\/p>\n
33.\t\tWe are in respectful agreement with
\nthe above observations. On the facts and in the
\ncircumstances of the case, in our judgment, the
\nHigh Court was clearly in error in exercising
\npower under Section 482 of the Code and in
\nquashing criminal proceedings. The said order,
\nhence, deserves to be set aside. The matter
\nwill now be decided in accordance with law by
\nan appropriate Court.\n<\/p>\n
34.\t\tBefore parting with the matter, we may
\nclarify that we have not entered into merits of
\nthe matter or allegations and counter
\nallegations by the parties and we may not be
\nunderstood to have expressed any opinion one
\nway or the other. All observations made by us
\nhereinabove have been made only for the limited
\npurpose of deciding the issue before us.  As
\nand when the matter will come before the Court,
\nit will be considered on its own merits without
\nbeing inhibited or influenced by the
\nobservations made by the High Court or by us in
\nthe present order.\n<\/p>\n
35.\t\tThe appeal is accordingly disposed of.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sunita Jain vs Pawan Kumar Jain & Ors on 25 January, 2008 Author: C Thakker Bench: C.K. Thakker, D.K. Jain CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 174 of 2008 PETITIONER: SUNITA JAIN RESPONDENT: PAWAN KUMAR JAIN & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/01\/2008 BENCH: C.K. THAKKER & D.K. JAIN JUDGMENT: J U D G […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-232852","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSunita Jain vs Pawan Kumar Jain & Ors on 25 January, 2008 - 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\/sunita-jain-vs-pawan-kumar-jain-ors-on-25-january-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sunita Jain vs Pawan Kumar Jain & Ors on 25 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunita-jain-vs-pawan-kumar-jain-ors-on-25-january-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-03T05:44:30+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunita-jain-vs-pawan-kumar-jain-ors-on-25-january-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunita-jain-vs-pawan-kumar-jain-ors-on-25-january-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sunita Jain vs Pawan Kumar Jain & Ors on 25 January, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-03T05:44:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunita-jain-vs-pawan-kumar-jain-ors-on-25-january-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4997,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunita-jain-vs-pawan-kumar-jain-ors-on-25-january-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunita-jain-vs-pawan-kumar-jain-ors-on-25-january-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunita-jain-vs-pawan-kumar-jain-ors-on-25-january-2008\",\"name\":\"Sunita Jain vs Pawan Kumar Jain & Ors on 25 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-03T05:44:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunita-jain-vs-pawan-kumar-jain-ors-on-25-january-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunita-jain-vs-pawan-kumar-jain-ors-on-25-january-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunita-jain-vs-pawan-kumar-jain-ors-on-25-january-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sunita Jain vs Pawan Kumar Jain & Ors on 25 January, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Sunita Jain vs Pawan Kumar Jain & Ors on 25 January, 2008 - 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\/sunita-jain-vs-pawan-kumar-jain-ors-on-25-january-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sunita Jain vs Pawan Kumar Jain & Ors on 25 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunita-jain-vs-pawan-kumar-jain-ors-on-25-january-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-03T05:44:30+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunita-jain-vs-pawan-kumar-jain-ors-on-25-january-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunita-jain-vs-pawan-kumar-jain-ors-on-25-january-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sunita Jain vs Pawan Kumar Jain & Ors on 25 January, 2008","datePublished":"2008-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-03T05:44:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunita-jain-vs-pawan-kumar-jain-ors-on-25-january-2008"},"wordCount":4997,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunita-jain-vs-pawan-kumar-jain-ors-on-25-january-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunita-jain-vs-pawan-kumar-jain-ors-on-25-january-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunita-jain-vs-pawan-kumar-jain-ors-on-25-january-2008","name":"Sunita Jain vs Pawan Kumar Jain & Ors on 25 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-03T05:44:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunita-jain-vs-pawan-kumar-jain-ors-on-25-january-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunita-jain-vs-pawan-kumar-jain-ors-on-25-january-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunita-jain-vs-pawan-kumar-jain-ors-on-25-january-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sunita Jain vs Pawan Kumar Jain & Ors on 25 January, 2008"}]},{"@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\/232852","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=232852"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232852\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=232852"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=232852"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=232852"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}