{"id":246930,"date":"2002-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sumathi-vs-m-p-ashok-on-27-september-2002"},"modified":"2019-01-31T01:32:46","modified_gmt":"2019-01-30T20:02:46","slug":"p-sumathi-vs-m-p-ashok-on-27-september-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sumathi-vs-m-p-ashok-on-27-september-2002","title":{"rendered":"P.Sumathi : vs M.P.Ashok : on 27 September, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">P.Sumathi : vs M.P.Ashok : on 27 September, 2002<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n ?IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 27\/09\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. PACKIARAJ\n\nCriminal Original Petition No. 15093 of 2000\n\nP.Sumathi                                              : Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\nM.P.Ashok                                              : Respondent\n\nPRAYER:  Petition filed to call for the records in CC.No.6 of 2000,\npending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode\nand quash the complaint.\n\n!For petitioner  :  Mr.R.Ramesh for\n                    M\/s M.S.Palaniswamy\n\n^For respondent  :  Mr.T.S.Sivagnanam\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>        This petition has been filed to quash the private complaint filed<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner for offence under Section 138 Negotiable<br \/>\nInstruments Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.The brief facts that are necessary for the purpose of disposing<br \/>\nof this petition may be stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>        The accused, who is the sole proprietrix of Velmathi Textiles, had<br \/>\npurchased yarns on credit from Sri Balaji Modern Yarns, Erode and for the said liability, towards the sale purchase, had issu<br \/>\ncheques to Sri Balaji Modern Yarns. Sri Balaji Modern Yarns having<br \/>\nreceived the cheques had made an endorsement in favour of the complainant.<br \/>\nThe total sum of the three cheques amounts to Rs.3,24,400\/- and the<br \/>\nfourth cheque relates to Rs.1,22,400\/-. The complainant presented the<br \/>\nthree cheques totalling to Rs.3,24,400\/- on 13.10.2000 and the same<br \/>\nwere dishonoured for want of funds. Hence after observing all the<br \/>\nformalities, the present complaint has been filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.The present petition for quashing has been filed mainly on the<br \/>\nground that there is absolutely no debt or liability for the accused<br \/>\ntowards the complainant and hence provisions under Section 138<br \/>\nNegotiable Instruments Act would not be attracted. However, it has to be seen that 138 Negotiable Instruments Act does not au<br \/>\nagainst the drawee but also holder in due course. But the same has<br \/>\nbeen countered by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that in the present case the complainant cannot be termed to<br \/>\ndue course since the cheque was not endorsed directly by the drawer<br \/>\nto the complainant, but as a matter of fact, it has been endorsed in<br \/>\nfavour of a third person, who in turn had endorsed it to a fourth<br \/>\nperson and the fourth person had in turn, endorsed it to the complainant<br \/>\nand as such, he cannot be deemed as a holder in due course, but may<br \/>\nat best be stated to be a holder.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.I need not go into this issue as such, as to whether the<br \/>\noriginal drawee has endorsed in favour of the second person, who endorsed it in favour of a third person, who in turn had end<br \/>\ncomplainant. This matter has to be decided only by the trial court. The<br \/>\nlearned counsel would no doubt argue that a bare look on the cheque<br \/>\nitself would reveal the same. It is pertinent to note that the original<br \/>\ncheque is not before the court, but only a xerox copy is there. However, this court cannot come to any particular conclusion<br \/>\nto when and under what circumstances the endorsement has been come to<br \/>\nbe made. As against this endorsement it s the specific case of the<br \/>\ncomplainant that the purchase has been made from Sri Balaji Modern<br \/>\nYarns and the cheque has been drawn in favour of Sri Balaji Modern Yarns<br \/>\nand as such, when they are disputed facts and this court sitting<br \/>\nunder 482 Cr.P.C cannot go into the question of disputed facts and the<br \/>\nmatter has to be necessarily decided only in the trial court.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.In support of his contention, the learned counsel would rely on<br \/>\nthe decision of Sukanraj Khimraja and another Vs. N.Rjagopalan and<br \/>\nothers (1989 1 LW 401) wherein their Lordships have held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;In the instant case, the plaintiff as a brother of M was fully<br \/>\naware that the cheque has been dishonoured and the endorsement in his<br \/>\nfavour was only after it was returned by the Bank. Therefore, Ex.A-1<br \/>\nhas lost its negotiability. Hence, he cannot be a holder in due course&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.In so far as the decision of the Division Bench of this court is<br \/>\nconcerned, no doubt, there is an observation that the cheque has lost its negotiability and hence the subsequent endorser can<br \/>\nlitigation where the claimant sought redress on the basis of the endorsement after the cheque has been dishonoured, without b<br \/>\nnegotiability. The learned Judges in the decision cited supra have not stopped with a mere observation as quoted supra, but h<br \/>\nwith a subsequent sentence which reads as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;This essential characteristic having not been comprehended and<br \/>\nmore so, when the cheque had never been thereafter presented to the Bank for encashment, the suit as laid, would not have bee<br \/>\n        It is in this context that the learned Judges have held that the<br \/>\nplaintiff in that case was not a holder in due course. But in the<br \/>\npresent case, admittedly, the cheque has not lost its negotiability. The<br \/>\ncheque is valid for six months and it could be presented in the bank<br \/>\nany number of times before the expiry of six months period. And as a<br \/>\nmatter of fact, even according to the petitioner, the cheque has been deposited in the bank after the endorsement has already<\/p>\n<p> of insufficiency of<br \/>\nfunds. In other words, the cheque in the present case has not lost its negotiability whereas in the case decided by the Divis<br \/>\ncheque has not been deposited in the Bank and therefore, their<br \/>\nLordships have held that it has lost its negotiability. In such<br \/>\ncircumstances, I do not feel that the decision may apply to the facts of this<br \/>\ncase. Hence I do not see any merit in the points raised by the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner. Secondly, it will not be out of place for me to state that in the present case, PW-1 has been exa<br \/>\ncontinued and at that stage, this petition has come to be filed. In<br \/>\nsuch circumstances, I don&#8217;t feel it proper to exercise the power of<br \/>\nthis court vested under 482 Cr.P.C and entertain this petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.In support of this I would rely upon the decision reported in<br \/>\nAmar Chand Agarwala Vs. Shanthi Bose (AIR 1973 SC 799) wherein it has<br \/>\nbeen observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8221; Where the accused moved the High Court at the time when the trial was almost coming to a close and what remained to<br \/>\nexamination of two prosecution and one court witnesses and the High<br \/>\ncourt quashed the charge and entire proceedings on the grounds that the<br \/>\ncomplainant suppressed material facts and that the evidence on record did not establish the alleged offence. The order was li<br \/>\nset aside. The proper course at that stage to be adopted by the high<br \/>\ncourt was to allow the proceedings to go on and to come to its logical<br \/>\nconclusion, one way or the other and decline to interfere with those<br \/>\nproceedings. The questions whether there was suppression and whether<br \/>\nthe evidence established the alleged offence were matters to be<br \/>\nconsidered by the trial court after an appraisal of the entire evidence.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.For the above said reasons, I see no merits in this petition and<br \/>\nthe same is therefore, dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.5198 of 200<br \/>\n1 is also dismissed.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\nINDEX: Yes\nWeb: Yes                                                           27.09.2002\ntar\n\n\nA.PACKIARAJ, J.\n\n\n\nTo\n\n1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode\n\n2.-do- Through the Chief Judicial Magistrate,\n  Erode\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court P.Sumathi : vs M.P.Ashok : on 27 September, 2002 ?IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27\/09\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. PACKIARAJ Criminal Original Petition No. 15093 of 2000 P.Sumathi : Petitioner -Vs- M.P.Ashok : Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed to call for the records in CC.No.6 of 2000, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-246930","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>P.Sumathi : vs M.P.Ashok : on 27 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sumathi-vs-m-p-ashok-on-27-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.Sumathi : vs M.P.Ashok : on 27 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sumathi-vs-m-p-ashok-on-27-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-30T20:02:46+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-sumathi-vs-m-p-ashok-on-27-september-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-sumathi-vs-m-p-ashok-on-27-september-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.Sumathi : vs M.P.Ashok : on 27 September, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-30T20:02:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-sumathi-vs-m-p-ashok-on-27-september-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1128,\"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\\\/p-sumathi-vs-m-p-ashok-on-27-september-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-sumathi-vs-m-p-ashok-on-27-september-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-sumathi-vs-m-p-ashok-on-27-september-2002\",\"name\":\"P.Sumathi : vs M.P.Ashok : on 27 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-30T20:02:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-sumathi-vs-m-p-ashok-on-27-september-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-sumathi-vs-m-p-ashok-on-27-september-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-sumathi-vs-m-p-ashok-on-27-september-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.Sumathi : vs M.P.Ashok : on 27 September, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"P.Sumathi : vs M.P.Ashok : on 27 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sumathi-vs-m-p-ashok-on-27-september-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.Sumathi : vs M.P.Ashok : on 27 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sumathi-vs-m-p-ashok-on-27-september-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-30T20:02:46+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sumathi-vs-m-p-ashok-on-27-september-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sumathi-vs-m-p-ashok-on-27-september-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.Sumathi : vs M.P.Ashok : on 27 September, 2002","datePublished":"2002-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-30T20:02:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sumathi-vs-m-p-ashok-on-27-september-2002"},"wordCount":1128,"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\/p-sumathi-vs-m-p-ashok-on-27-september-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sumathi-vs-m-p-ashok-on-27-september-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sumathi-vs-m-p-ashok-on-27-september-2002","name":"P.Sumathi : vs M.P.Ashok : on 27 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-30T20:02:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sumathi-vs-m-p-ashok-on-27-september-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sumathi-vs-m-p-ashok-on-27-september-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sumathi-vs-m-p-ashok-on-27-september-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.Sumathi : vs M.P.Ashok : on 27 September, 2002"}]},{"@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\/246930","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=246930"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246930\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=246930"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=246930"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=246930"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}