{"id":24526,"date":"2007-11-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-ramamurthy-vs-state-on-26-november-2007"},"modified":"2017-07-20T03:00:40","modified_gmt":"2017-07-19T21:30:40","slug":"ramesh-ramamurthy-vs-state-on-26-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-ramamurthy-vs-state-on-26-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"Ramesh Ramamurthy vs State on 26 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Ramesh Ramamurthy vs State on 26 November, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n                              \n                     DATED : 26.11.2007\n                              \n                            CORAM\n                              \n           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. MOHAN RAM\n                              \n         CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.33359 of 2007\n\n\n\n                              \n1.   Ramesh Ramamurthy\n\n2.   M.S. Ramamurthy\n\n3.   Bhuvaneswari Ramamurthy\n\n4.   Saikumar Ramamurthy     \t\t...Petitioners\n\n\n            Vs.\n\n\n1.   State\n     Inspector of Police\n     All Women Police Station\n     Trichirapalli.\n\n2.   Subha            \t\t\t...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n      Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482  of\n\nCr.P.C.  praying to call for the records in C.C.No.10668  of\n\n2005   pending   on  the  file  of  the  Chief  Metropolitan\n\nMagistrate, Egmore and quash the same.\n\n\n\n\n          For Petitioners    : M\/s. K. Kannan\n\n          For  R1            : Mr. Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, G.A.(Crl.Side)\n\n          For R2             : M\/s. Muthupandian\n\n\n\n\n\n                          O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
           The  above  criminal original petition  has  been<\/p>\n
filed to quash the complaint in C.C.No.10668 of 2005 pending<\/p>\n
on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.<\/p>\n
      2.    During the pendency of the above case,  as  seen<\/p>\n
from  the affidavit filed by the second respondent,  who  is<\/p>\n
the defacto complainant that the defacto complainant and the<\/p>\n
first  petitioner in the criminal original petition, who  is<\/p>\n
the  husband  of the defacto complainant had arrived  at  an<\/p>\n
amicable  settlement before the Hon’ble  Division  Bench  of<\/p>\n
this  Court  on 27.06.2007. Pursuant to the said  settlement<\/p>\n
arrived  at, a decree for divorce has been granted  by  this<\/p>\n
Hon’ble  High Court in C.M.A.No. 3054 of 2006 on 27.06.2007.<\/p>\n
In  the  affidavit, the defacto complainant has stated  that<\/p>\n
she would not pursue the criminal case in future.<\/p>\n
      3.  Heard  the  learned counsel  for  the  petitioner,<\/p>\n
learned   Government  Advocate  (Crl.Side)  for  the   first<\/p>\n
respondent   and   the  learned  counsel  for   the   second<\/p>\n
respondent.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon a<\/p>\n
decision in  B.S. JOSHI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARIYANA AND<\/p>\n
ANOTHER reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1386 and in RUCHI<\/p>\n
AGARWAL VS. AMIT KUMAR AGARWAL reported in 2005(3) SCC  299,<\/p>\n
submitted that in the matrimonial matter, if the husband and<\/p>\n
wife amicably settled the dispute, this Court can invoke the<\/p>\n
power  under  Section 482 of Cr.P.C. so  as  to  enable  the<\/p>\n
parties to live in peace.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for<\/p>\n
the  first  respondent fairly submits that the complaint  in<\/p>\n
C.C.No.10668  of  2005 may be quashed by  relying  upon  the<\/p>\n
aforesaid Apex Court decisions.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      6. In the decision reported in  AIR 2003 Supreme Court<\/p>\n
1386  (B.S.  JOSHI  AND  OTHERS VS. STATE  OF  HARIYANA  AND<\/p>\n
ANOTHER),  in paragraphs 12, 14 and 15, the Apex  Court  has<\/p>\n
observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          ”     12.  The  special features  in  such<\/p>\n
          matrimonial   matters  are   evident.   It<\/p>\n
          becomes the duty of the Court to encourage<\/p>\n
          genuine    settlements   of    matrimonial<\/p>\n
          disputes.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
               13. …….. ………… ………<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               14. There is no doubt that the object<\/p>\n
          of  introducing  Chapter  XX-A  containing<\/p>\n
          Section 498-A in the Indian penal code was<\/p>\n
          to  prevent the torture to a woman by  her<\/p>\n
          husband  or  by relatives of her  husband.<\/p>\n
          Section  498-A was added with  a  view  to<\/p>\n
          punishing a husband and his relatives  who<\/p>\n
          harass  or torture the wife to coerce  her<\/p>\n
          or   her  relatives  to  satisfy  unlawful<\/p>\n
          demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view<\/p>\n
          would be counter productive and would  get<\/p>\n
          against interests of women and against the<\/p>\n
          object for which this provision was added.<\/p>\n
          There   is  every  likelihood  that   non-<\/p>\n
          exercise  of inherent power to  quash  the<\/p>\n
          proceedings  to meet the ends  of  justice<\/p>\n
          would  prevent women from setting earlier.<\/p>\n
          That  is not the object of Chapter XXA  of<\/p>\n
          Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
               15. In  view of the above discussion,<\/p>\n
          we hold that the High Court in exercise of<\/p>\n
          its  inherent  powers  can quash  criminal<\/p>\n
          proceedings   or  FIR  or  complaint   and<\/p>\n
          Section 320 of the Code does not limit  or<\/p>\n
          affect the powers under Section 482 of the<\/p>\n
          Code.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/p>\n
      7. In RUCHI AGARWAL VS. AMIT KUMAR AGARWAL reported in<\/p>\n
2005(3)  SCC 299, in paragraphs 7, 8 and 8, the  Apex  Court<\/p>\n
has observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          ”  7.  It  is based on the said compromise<\/p>\n
          the   appellant  obtained  a  divorce   as<\/p>\n
          desired by her under Section 13-B  of  the<\/p>\n
          Hindu   Marriage   Act  and   in   partial<\/p>\n
          compliance   with   the   terms   of   the<\/p>\n
          compromise she withdrew the criminal  case<\/p>\n
          filed  under  Section 125 of the  Criminal<\/p>\n
          Procedure  Code  but  for  reasons  better<\/p>\n
          known  to  her  she did not withdraw  that<\/p>\n
          complaint  from which this appeal  arises.<\/p>\n
          That  apart  after the order of  the  High<\/p>\n
          Court  quashing the said complaint on  the<\/p>\n
          ground  of  territorial jurisdiction,  she<\/p>\n
          has  chosen to file this appeal. It is  in<\/p>\n
          this   background,   we   will   have   to<\/p>\n
          appreciate the merits of this appeal.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  8.   ………..   ……………<\/p>\n
          ……………….          ………….<\/p>\n
          …………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          ……………      …………………<\/p>\n
          ………………           ………….<\/p>\n
          ………………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
          Therefore, we are of the opinion that  the<\/p>\n
          appellant  having received the relief  she<\/p>\n
          wanted without contest on the basis of the<\/p>\n
          terms  of  the compromise, we  cannot  now<\/p>\n
          accept the argument of the learned counsel<\/p>\n
          for  the  appellant. In our  opinion,  the<\/p>\n
          conduct  of  the appellant indicates  that<\/p>\n
          the  criminal  complaint from  which  this<\/p>\n
          appeal  arises was filed by the wife  only<\/p>\n
          to harass the respondents.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 9.   In   view  of  the   abovesaid<\/p>\n
          subsequent events and the conduct  of  the<\/p>\n
          appellant,  it would be an  abuse  of  the<\/p>\n
          process  of  the  Court  if  the  criminal<\/p>\n
          proceedings from which this appeal  arises<\/p>\n
          is  allowed to continue. Therefore, we are<\/p>\n
          of  the  considered opinion to do complete<\/p>\n
          justice,  we should while dismissing  this<\/p>\n
          appeal  also quash the proceedings arising<\/p>\n
          from   criminal  case  Cr.No.224  of  2003<\/p>\n
          registered  in  Police  Station   Bilaspur<\/p>\n
          (District Rampur) filed under Sections 498-<\/p>\n
          A,  323  and 506 IPC and under Sections  3<\/p>\n
          and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against<\/p>\n
          the respondents herein.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/p>\n
     8. A perusal of the said observations of the Apex Court<\/p>\n
makes  it  abundantly  clear that  if  the  parties  to  the<\/p>\n
matrimonial  dispute amicably settle the  dispute,  then  it<\/p>\n
becomes   the  duty  of  the  Court  to  encourage   genuine<\/p>\n
settlements  of matrimonial disputes and the High  Court  in<\/p>\n
exercise  of  its  inherent powers can  quash  the  criminal<\/p>\n
proceedings or FIR or complaint.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      9.  In view of the facts stated above and in the light<\/p>\n
of  the Apex Court decisions, the criminal original petition<\/p>\n
is  allowed and C.C.No.10668 of 2005 pending on the file  of<\/p>\n
the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, is quashed.<\/p>\n
mra<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.   The Inspector of Police
\n     All Women Police Station
\n     Trichirapalli.\n<\/p>\n
2.   The Public Prosecutor
\n     High Court
\n     Madras 104.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Ramesh Ramamurthy vs State on 26 November, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.11.2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. MOHAN RAM CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.33359 of 2007 1. Ramesh Ramamurthy 2. M.S. Ramamurthy 3. Bhuvaneswari Ramamurthy 4. Saikumar Ramamurthy …Petitioners Vs. 1. State Inspector of Police […]<\/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-24526","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamesh Ramamurthy vs State on 26 November, 2007 - 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\/ramesh-ramamurthy-vs-state-on-26-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramesh Ramamurthy vs State on 26 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-ramamurthy-vs-state-on-26-november-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-19T21:30:40+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-ramamurthy-vs-state-on-26-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-ramamurthy-vs-state-on-26-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramesh Ramamurthy vs State on 26 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-19T21:30:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-ramamurthy-vs-state-on-26-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":902,\"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\\\/ramesh-ramamurthy-vs-state-on-26-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-ramamurthy-vs-state-on-26-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-ramamurthy-vs-state-on-26-november-2007\",\"name\":\"Ramesh Ramamurthy vs State on 26 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-19T21:30:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-ramamurthy-vs-state-on-26-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-ramamurthy-vs-state-on-26-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-ramamurthy-vs-state-on-26-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramesh Ramamurthy vs State on 26 November, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Ramesh Ramamurthy vs State on 26 November, 2007 - 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\/ramesh-ramamurthy-vs-state-on-26-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramesh Ramamurthy vs State on 26 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-ramamurthy-vs-state-on-26-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-19T21:30:40+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-ramamurthy-vs-state-on-26-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-ramamurthy-vs-state-on-26-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramesh Ramamurthy vs State on 26 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-19T21:30:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-ramamurthy-vs-state-on-26-november-2007"},"wordCount":902,"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\/ramesh-ramamurthy-vs-state-on-26-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-ramamurthy-vs-state-on-26-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-ramamurthy-vs-state-on-26-november-2007","name":"Ramesh Ramamurthy vs State on 26 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-19T21:30:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-ramamurthy-vs-state-on-26-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-ramamurthy-vs-state-on-26-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-ramamurthy-vs-state-on-26-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramesh Ramamurthy vs State on 26 November, 2007"}]},{"@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\/24526","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=24526"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24526\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24526"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24526"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24526"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}