{"id":249246,"date":"2008-11-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ramaraj-vs-madhusudhanan-on-13-november-2008"},"modified":"2017-02-08T17:59:47","modified_gmt":"2017-02-08T12:29:47","slug":"n-ramaraj-vs-madhusudhanan-on-13-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ramaraj-vs-madhusudhanan-on-13-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"N.Ramaraj vs Madhusudhanan on 13 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
N.Ramaraj vs Madhusudhanan on 13 November, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.MC.No. 1931 of 2008()\n\n\n1. N.RAMARAJ,S\/O.NARAYANAN NAIDU,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. R.PREMAVATHY,W\/O.R.NARAYANAN NAIDU,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. MADHUSUDHANAN,S\/O.CHURULLIYIL RAMAN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :13\/11\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                      THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.\n           = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                     CRL.M.C. No.1931 of 2008\n           = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = =\n         Dated this the 13th        day of November,      2008\n\n                               O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                              ————–\n<\/p>\n
\n
      Prayer in this petition is to quash Annexure A complaint<\/p>\n
filed by the first respondent in the court of Judicial First Class<\/p>\n
Magistrate,   Irinjalakuda    against       petitioners  for offences<\/p>\n
punishable under Sections 406, 417, 420 and 468 read with 34<\/p>\n
of the Indian Penal Code<\/a> (for short, “the Code”). Petitioners who<\/p>\n
are the accused have come to this Court under Section 482<\/a> of<\/p>\n
the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “Cr.P.C<\/a>.”).<\/p>\n
      2.    Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n
      3.    First respondent filed complaint alleging that his<\/p>\n
brother-in-law was engaged in some business in the building<\/p>\n
bearing Sy.No.160\/1 of Irinjalakuda Village and while so, one<\/p>\n
Anilkumar    informed him that petitioners are intending to sell<\/p>\n
the said building and 2.5 cents of land abutting the P.W.D. road.<\/p>\n
On 23.9.2002 petitioners and first respondent entered into an<\/p>\n
agreement as per which first respondent agreed to purchase the<\/p>\n
land and building for a total consideration of Rs.2,05,000\/-.<\/p>\n
Petitioners received Rs.50,000\/- on that day. A period of 18<\/p>\n
CRL. M.C. No.1931 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                 -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
months was fixed for execution of the sale deed.        Petitioners had<\/p>\n
undertaken to evict the tenants from the building before execution of<\/p>\n
the sale deed and to discharge all encumbrance in the property.        It<\/p>\n
was also agreed that incase there is any delay in effecting execution,<\/p>\n
period of agreement could be extended. On 10.1.2003, petitioners<\/p>\n
took a further sum of Rs.35,000\/- from the first respondent and<\/p>\n
endorsed that fact on the back      of the agreement.     On 12.7.2004<\/p>\n
another agreement was executed between the parties stating that<\/p>\n
Rs.85,000\/- was taken as advance. On 22.11.2004 petitioners took a<\/p>\n
further sum of Rs.40,000\/- from the first respondent by way of advance<\/p>\n
and made an endorsement to that effect on the back               of the<\/p>\n
agreement.      In May, 2005 first petitioner told the first respondent<\/p>\n
that he is involved in a love marriage and is not able to reside with his<\/p>\n
family members and that he is not able to discharge the liability of<\/p>\n
Rs.8,00,000\/- over the property agreed to be sold and hence a fresh<\/p>\n
agreement could be executed between the parties.          On 16.6.2005<\/p>\n
another agreement was executed between the parties stating that<\/p>\n
Rs.1,25,000\/- was taken by the petitioners as advance from the first<\/p>\n
respondent.      First respondent signed that agreement and handed<\/p>\n
over the same to petitioner No.2 to obtain the signature of petitioner<\/p>\n
CRL. M.C. No.1931 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                  -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
No.1. That was done as per the instruction of the first respondent.<\/p>\n
But that agreement was not returned to the first respondent wilfully<\/p>\n
to make it appear that since        petitioners are in custody of that<\/p>\n
agreement, liability under the agreement has been discharged by<\/p>\n
cancellation of the agreement itself.         Petitioners retained that<\/p>\n
agreement putting a different date beneath their signature.        Thus<\/p>\n
petitioners cheated the first respondent and fabricated the document.<\/p>\n
       4.   Learned magistrate initially dismissed the complaint<\/p>\n
observing that what is involved is a civil dispute.     That order was<\/p>\n
challenged by the first respondent in this Court in Crl. R.P. No.2918 of<\/p>\n
2006. A learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 24.11.2006<\/p>\n
set aside the order dismissing the complaint and remitted the matter<\/p>\n
to the learned magistrate      for fresh consideration after taking into<\/p>\n
account the entire averments in the complaint and the             sworn<\/p>\n
statement of the complainant and C.W.2. First respondent was given<\/p>\n
liberty to examine other witnesses if any, in support of the averments<\/p>\n
in the compliant. After remand, no further evidence was let in by the<\/p>\n
first respondent. Learned magistrate considered the complaint, sworn<\/p>\n
statement of the first respondent and C.W.2 and took cognizance for<\/p>\n
the offences under Sections 406<\/a>, 417<\/a>, 420<\/a> and 468<\/a> read with 34 of the<\/p>\n
CRL. M.C. No.1931 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                 -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Code. Petitioners are aggrieved and request this Court to exercise the<\/p>\n
power under Section 482<\/a> Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint.<\/p>\n
       5.   Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the<\/p>\n
decisions in Hotline Teletubes and Components Ltd. v.<\/p>\n
State of Bihar (2005) 10 SCC 260 and Muralilal Gupta v.<\/p>\n
Gopi Singh (2005) 13 SCC 699). Counsel contended that even if<\/p>\n
the entire averments in the compliant are accepted, no offence under<\/p>\n
the Code<\/a> is made out it being purely a civil dispute for failure of<\/p>\n
petitioners to honour the alleged agreement for sale.     It is further<\/p>\n
contended that at any rate, sworn statement of the first respondent or<\/p>\n
C.W.2 does not disclose any offence. Learned counsel for the first<\/p>\n
respondent supported the finding of the court below.<\/p>\n
       6.   For taking cognizance    averments in the complaint and<\/p>\n
sworn statement of complainant and witnesses       if any, have to be<\/p>\n
considered. Therefore, merely based on the sworn statement of the<\/p>\n
first respondent and C.W.1 alone, petitioners cannot justifiably urge<\/p>\n
this Court to invoke the power under Section 482<\/a> Cr.P.C. and quash<\/p>\n
the complaint.\n<\/p>\n
       7.   In short what is alleged in the complaint is that with the<\/p>\n
intention of cheating the first respondent petitioners entered into an<\/p>\n
CRL. M.C. No.1931 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                  -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
agreement with the petitioners, received substantial sum out of the<\/p>\n
sale    consideration as advance and avoided execution of the sale<\/p>\n
deed. It is also that ultimately, the renewal agreement was got into<\/p>\n
the custody of petitioners under the guise of obtaining signature of<\/p>\n
first petitioner, but petitioners put    a different date beneath their<\/p>\n
signatures and        refused to return that agreement to the first<\/p>\n
respondent to make it appear that liability under that agreement was<\/p>\n
discharged by cancellation of the agreement itself as evidenced by the<\/p>\n
fact that petitioners are in custody of the agreement which created<\/p>\n
liability on them. According to the first respondent, attempt of the<\/p>\n
petitioners was to cheat him.    On going through the averments in the<\/p>\n
complaint it is difficult to say that what is made out is only a civil<\/p>\n
liability for specific performance of the alleged agreement for sale. I<\/p>\n
am satisfied that so far as the offences punishable under Sections 417<\/a><\/p>\n
and 420<\/a> of the Code are concerned, learned magistrate was correct in<\/p>\n
taking cognizance on the materials available.<\/p>\n
       8.     So far as offence under Section 406<\/a> of the Code is<\/p>\n
concerned,     first respondent  had to show that there was criminal<\/p>\n
breach of trust. Criminal breach of trust is defined in Section 405<\/a> of<\/p>\n
the Code. The essential ingredient is that the accused, being in any<\/p>\n
CRL. M.C. No.1931 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                  -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
manner entrusted with property or with any dominion over property<\/p>\n
dishonestly misappropriates the said property or converts it to his own<\/p>\n
use or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any<\/p>\n
direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be<\/p>\n
discharged. According to the first respondent, agreement executed on<\/p>\n
16.6.2005, signed by him and entrusted to second petitioner to obtain<\/p>\n
signature of first petitioner was not returned. But it is difficult to say<\/p>\n
that petitioners dishonestly misappropriated or converted any<\/p>\n
property to their use or dishonestly used or disposed of any property<\/p>\n
(here, the agreement) as contemplated in Section 405<\/a> of the Code.<\/p>\n
Therefore, there was no sufficient material for taking cognizance for<\/p>\n
the offence punishable under Section 406<\/a> of the Code.<\/p>\n
      9.   Now I shall refer to the offence alleged to be committed<\/p>\n
and punishable under Section 468<\/a> of the Code. Forgery is defined in<\/p>\n
Section 463<\/a> of the Code.      It involves making of false documents,<\/p>\n
among other things. Making of false documents is defined in Section<\/p>\n
464<\/a> of the Code. It involves doing of any of the acts enumerated in<\/p>\n
clauses (a) to (d) with the intention of causing it to be believed that<\/p>\n
such document or part of the document, etc., is executed by a person<\/p>\n
by whom or by whose authority the maker knows has not made it. In<\/p>\n
CRL. M.C. No.1931 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                    -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
this case the allegation in Annexure A complaint to attract the offence<\/p>\n
under 468 of the Code<\/a> is that petitioners put a different date beneath<\/p>\n
their signatures in the agreement dated            16.6.2005.    That case<\/p>\n
comes under clause secondly of Section 464<\/a> of the Code. Putting a<\/p>\n
different date than the date of execution of the document fraudulently<\/p>\n
to make it appear that the document was executed on a different date,<\/p>\n
if it is for the purpose of cheating amounts to offence          punishable<\/p>\n
under Section 468<\/a> of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
       10.   In the light of what I have stated, Annexure A complaint to<\/p>\n
the extent it related to the offence under Section 406<\/a> read with 34 of<\/p>\n
the Code<\/a> and      consequent proceedings in respect of that offence are<\/p>\n
liable to be quashed. There is however, no reason to interfere with<\/p>\n
the order of the learned magistrate taking cognizance for the offences<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 417<\/a>, 420<\/a> and 468<\/a> read with 34 of the Code<\/a>.<\/p>\n
       This petition is therefore disposed of in the following lines:<\/p>\n
                   (a)    Annexure      A   complaint      and     all<\/p>\n
             consequent proceedings to the extent it related to<\/p>\n
             the offence punishable under Section 406<\/a> read with<\/p>\n
             34 of the Code<\/a> are quashed.\n<\/p>\n
                   (b)    This petition to the extent it related to\n\nCRL. M.C. No.1931 of 2008\n\n                                -: 8 :-<\/span>\n\n\n\n           the offences punishable     under Sections 417<\/a>, 420<\/a>\n\n           and 468<\/a> read with 34 of the Code<\/a> is dismissed.\n\n                  (c)   Learned magistrate   shall proceed with\n\n           the case to the extent it concerned the     offences\n\n<\/pre>\n
           punishable under Sections 417<\/a>, 420<\/a> and 468<\/a> read<\/p>\n
           with 34 of the Code<\/a> and dispose of the same as<\/p>\n
           provided under law untrammelled by any of the<\/p>\n
           observations contained in this order.\n<\/p>\n
\n
     Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.2651 of 2008 shall stand<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                         THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
\nvsv<\/p>\n
CRL. M.C. No.1931 of 2008<\/p>\n
                             -: 9 :-<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court N.Ramaraj vs Madhusudhanan on 13 November, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 1931 of 2008() 1. N.RAMARAJ,S\/O.NARAYANAN NAIDU, … Petitioner 2. R.PREMAVATHY,W\/O.R.NARAYANAN NAIDU, Vs 1. MADHUSUDHANAN,S\/O.CHURULLIYIL RAMAN, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. Justice […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-249246","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nN.Ramaraj vs Madhusudhanan on 13 November, 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\/n-ramaraj-vs-madhusudhanan-on-13-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N.Ramaraj vs Madhusudhanan on 13 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ramaraj-vs-madhusudhanan-on-13-november-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=\"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-08T12:29:47+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-ramaraj-vs-madhusudhanan-on-13-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-ramaraj-vs-madhusudhanan-on-13-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N.Ramaraj vs Madhusudhanan on 13 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-08T12:29:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-ramaraj-vs-madhusudhanan-on-13-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1512,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-ramaraj-vs-madhusudhanan-on-13-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-ramaraj-vs-madhusudhanan-on-13-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-ramaraj-vs-madhusudhanan-on-13-november-2008\",\"name\":\"N.Ramaraj vs Madhusudhanan on 13 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-08T12:29:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-ramaraj-vs-madhusudhanan-on-13-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-ramaraj-vs-madhusudhanan-on-13-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-ramaraj-vs-madhusudhanan-on-13-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N.Ramaraj vs Madhusudhanan on 13 November, 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":"N.Ramaraj vs Madhusudhanan on 13 November, 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\/n-ramaraj-vs-madhusudhanan-on-13-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N.Ramaraj vs Madhusudhanan on 13 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ramaraj-vs-madhusudhanan-on-13-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-08T12:29:47+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ramaraj-vs-madhusudhanan-on-13-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ramaraj-vs-madhusudhanan-on-13-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N.Ramaraj vs Madhusudhanan on 13 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-08T12:29:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ramaraj-vs-madhusudhanan-on-13-november-2008"},"wordCount":1512,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ramaraj-vs-madhusudhanan-on-13-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ramaraj-vs-madhusudhanan-on-13-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ramaraj-vs-madhusudhanan-on-13-november-2008","name":"N.Ramaraj vs Madhusudhanan on 13 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-08T12:29:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ramaraj-vs-madhusudhanan-on-13-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ramaraj-vs-madhusudhanan-on-13-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ramaraj-vs-madhusudhanan-on-13-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N.Ramaraj vs Madhusudhanan on 13 November, 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\/249246","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=249246"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249246\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=249246"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=249246"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=249246"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}