{"id":258864,"date":"2008-08-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muhammed-kunju-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-27-august-2008"},"modified":"2018-04-28T22:39:14","modified_gmt":"2018-04-28T17:09:14","slug":"muhammed-kunju-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-27-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muhammed-kunju-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-27-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Muhammed Kunju vs Sulekha Beevi on 27 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Muhammed Kunju vs Sulekha Beevi on 27 August, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 306 of 2001(A)\n\n\n\n1. MUHAMMED KUNJU\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. SULEKHA BEEVI\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI\n\n Dated :27\/08\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                        V.GIRI, J.\n             -------------------------------------\n               CRL.A.NO.306 of 2001\n             -------------------------------------\n        Dated this the 27th day of August, 2008.\n\n                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       The complainant in C.C.No.229\/98 on the<\/p>\n
files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First<\/p>\n
Class-II  (Forest     Offences),           Punalur,    is  the<\/p>\n
appellant herein.\n<\/p>\n
       2. The complaint was filed alleging that<\/p>\n
the  complainant     and     the      first       accused were<\/p>\n
husband and wife.      But later, they divorced. 19<\/p>\n
cents of property had actually been conveyed in<\/p>\n
favour of the complainant and the 1st accused as<\/p>\n
“streedhanam” at the time of their marriage.<\/p>\n
After the parties had separated, both of them<\/p>\n
had remarried and are living separately. The<\/p>\n
complainant did not at any point of time, claim<\/p>\n
a right over the 19 cents, though the document<\/p>\n
of title stood in his name. He had not claimed<\/p>\n
possession over the same, nor had he taken any<\/p>\n
usufructs from it. But the accused conspired<\/p>\n
together  and   caused       the      original      of   Ext.P1<\/p>\n
document to be executed, making it appear that<\/p>\n
the complainant had also joined in the execution<\/p>\n
of the same. This act, the appellant says, had<\/p>\n
Cr.A.NO.306\/01<\/p>\n
                      :: 2 ::\n<\/p>\n
\ntarnished his reputation and image. Though he<\/p>\n
did  not  claim  any  specific  right  over  the<\/p>\n
property as such after the divorce, the accused<\/p>\n
had abetted each other and executed a sale deed<\/p>\n
by  making  the  complainant   a  party  to the<\/p>\n
document by affixing a false thump impression<\/p>\n
without his consent and knowledge, thereby they<\/p>\n
had  tarnished  his  reputation  and  hence the<\/p>\n
complaint,  alleging   that   the  accused  have<\/p>\n
committed  offences  punishable  under  Sections<\/p>\n
114, 120B, 419, 465, 469 and 500 read with<\/p>\n
Section 34<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code.<\/p>\n
       3. The evidence in the case consisted of<\/p>\n
the testimony of Pws.1 to 5.    The court below,<\/p>\n
on an appreciation of the evidence, acquitted<\/p>\n
the accused finding that the complainant has not<\/p>\n
been  able  to  prove  that   the  accused  have<\/p>\n
committed the offences as such. Hence, this<\/p>\n
appeal by the complainant challenging the order<\/p>\n
of acquittal of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
       4.   I  heard  learned  counsel  for the<\/p>\n
appellant and I have perused the records.<\/p>\n
       5. What is to be noted, at the outset,<\/p>\n
is that the specific case of the complainant is<\/p>\n
Cr.A.NO.306\/01<\/p>\n
                      :: 3 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nthat though the 19 cents of property had been<\/p>\n
conveyed in favour of him and the 1st accused, at<\/p>\n
the time of their marriage, the complainant<\/p>\n
specifically refused to assert any right over<\/p>\n
the property.    According to him, he did not<\/p>\n
claim any right over the property, which has<\/p>\n
been   obtained   by    the    1st  accused    as<\/p>\n
“Streedhanam”.   In   the     circumstance,   the<\/p>\n
complainant does not seem to be correct in<\/p>\n
saying that, by an act of forgery the accused<\/p>\n
had committed the offences alleged by hatching a<\/p>\n
criminal conspiracy between them and caused the<\/p>\n
execution of the original of Ext.P1 and deprived<\/p>\n
him of the valuable right, which he had asserted<\/p>\n
over the property.  He had specifically asserted<\/p>\n
that he does not have right over the property.<\/p>\n
But he is aggrieved by the loss of reputation<\/p>\n
suffered by him in describing him as Executant<\/p>\n
No.1 and the 1st accused as Executant No.3, as<\/p>\n
husband and wife.   Hence he was constrained to<\/p>\n
lodge the criminal prosecution.<\/p>\n
       6. I have gone through the evidence and<\/p>\n
I find that the complainant, who as PW.1 has not<\/p>\n
been able to specifically say, who exactly was<\/p>\n
Cr.A.NO.306\/01<\/p>\n
                       :: 4 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nresponsible for the forgery and who had abetted<\/p>\n
the same.   Significantly Executant No.1 was the<\/p>\n
2nd accused. Obviously, the 2nd accused cannot be<\/p>\n
considered as having either committed forgery or<\/p>\n
abetted the same because he had executed the<\/p>\n
document   in  respect   of    item  No.1  in   the<\/p>\n
document, another 20 cents of property, over<\/p>\n
which the complainant did not claim any right.<\/p>\n
Executant No.1, the 2nd accused also did not<\/p>\n
claim any right over the 19 cents of property<\/p>\n
which is item No.2 therein.     In other words, the<\/p>\n
presence of the 2nd accused in the document or at<\/p>\n
the time of actual transaction has nothing to do<\/p>\n
with the conveyance of the property having an<\/p>\n
extent of 19 cents of property, described as<\/p>\n
Item No.2 in the document.     Insofar as accused 6<\/p>\n
and 7 are concerned, they were only witnesses to<\/p>\n
the document.     The property in question was<\/p>\n
purchased by accused 4 and 5 and 3rd accused is<\/p>\n
alleged to be the person, who presented the<\/p>\n
document    before   the      Sub  Registrar    for<\/p>\n
registration.   PW.1 has not been able to say<\/p>\n
with any degree of certainty as to who is<\/p>\n
responsible for the forgery and who had abetted<\/p>\n
Cr.A.NO.306\/01<\/p>\n
                      :: 5 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nthe person who had committed forgery.         The<\/p>\n
allegation simplicitor will not strike against<\/p>\n
the 2nd accused because he was the executant of<\/p>\n
the document, but he was the vendor of one item<\/p>\n
of property unrelated to the appellant.   Accused<\/p>\n
6 and 7 cannot be considered as having committed<\/p>\n
the act of forgery.\n<\/p>\n
        7. In short, the evidence before the<\/p>\n
court below was so vague as regards the other<\/p>\n
allegations  of  forgery    or abetment.  In  the<\/p>\n
circumstance, the court below had apparently no<\/p>\n
option, but to acquit the accused.<\/p>\n
        8. I am in agreement with the findings<\/p>\n
of the court below that no offence has been made<\/p>\n
out against any of the accused.   The evidence is<\/p>\n
scanty. The court below took serious note of the<\/p>\n
fact that according to the complainant, he had<\/p>\n
specifically refused to assert any right over 19<\/p>\n
cents of property forming the subject matter of<\/p>\n
the original of Ext.P1 since divorce between him<\/p>\n
and the 1st accused.  It cannot be said that his<\/p>\n
reputation has been tarnished by reason of the<\/p>\n
execution of the document.    In the circumstance,<\/p>\n
I do not find any grounds at all to interfere<\/p>\n
Cr.A.NO.306\/01<\/p>\n
                      :: 6 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nwith the order of acquittal. I am in full<\/p>\n
agreement with the findings of the court below.<\/p>\n
       For all these reasons, I find that the<\/p>\n
appeal is bereft of any merit and the same is<\/p>\n
accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                       Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                     (V.GIRI)
\n                                      JUDGE<\/p>\n
sk\/<\/p>\n
         \/\/true copy\/\/<\/p>\n
              P.S. To Judge<\/p>\n
                   V.GIRI, J.\n<\/p>\n
 ———————————————-<\/p>\n
         CRL.A.No.306 of 2001<\/p>\n
                JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
            27th August, 2008.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
————————————————<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Muhammed Kunju vs Sulekha Beevi on 27 August, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 306 of 2001(A) 1. MUHAMMED KUNJU … Petitioner Vs 1. SULEKHA BEEVI … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE For Respondent :SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR The Hon’ble MR. Justice V.GIRI Dated :27\/08\/2008 O R D E R […]<\/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-258864","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMuhammed Kunju vs Sulekha Beevi on 27 August, 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\/muhammed-kunju-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-27-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Muhammed Kunju vs Sulekha Beevi on 27 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muhammed-kunju-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-27-august-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=\"2008-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-28T17:09:14+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\\\/muhammed-kunju-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-27-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muhammed-kunju-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-27-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Muhammed Kunju vs Sulekha Beevi on 27 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-28T17:09:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muhammed-kunju-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-27-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":986,\"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\\\/muhammed-kunju-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-27-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muhammed-kunju-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-27-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muhammed-kunju-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-27-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Muhammed Kunju vs Sulekha Beevi on 27 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-28T17:09:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muhammed-kunju-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-27-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muhammed-kunju-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-27-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muhammed-kunju-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-27-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Muhammed Kunju vs Sulekha Beevi on 27 August, 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":"Muhammed Kunju vs Sulekha Beevi on 27 August, 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\/muhammed-kunju-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-27-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Muhammed Kunju vs Sulekha Beevi on 27 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muhammed-kunju-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-27-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-28T17:09:14+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\/muhammed-kunju-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-27-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muhammed-kunju-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-27-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Muhammed Kunju vs Sulekha Beevi on 27 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-28T17:09:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muhammed-kunju-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-27-august-2008"},"wordCount":986,"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\/muhammed-kunju-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-27-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muhammed-kunju-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-27-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muhammed-kunju-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-27-august-2008","name":"Muhammed Kunju vs Sulekha Beevi on 27 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-28T17:09:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muhammed-kunju-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-27-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muhammed-kunju-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-27-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muhammed-kunju-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-27-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Muhammed Kunju vs Sulekha Beevi on 27 August, 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\/258864","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=258864"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258864\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=258864"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=258864"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=258864"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}