{"id":260739,"date":"2008-11-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikrant-kumar-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-17-november-2008"},"modified":"2018-05-01T03:05:38","modified_gmt":"2018-04-30T21:35:38","slug":"vikrant-kumar-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-17-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikrant-kumar-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-17-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Vikrant Kumar And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 17 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Vikrant Kumar And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 17 November, 2008<\/div>\n
                  Criminal Misc.No.6514-M of 2008.\n                           -1-\n\nIn the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.\n\n                   Criminal Misc.No.6514-M of 2008.\n\n                   Date of decision:17-11-2008\n\nVikrant Kumar and others.\n\n                                                     ...Petitioners.\n\n            Versus\n\nState of Punjab and another.\n\n                                                     ...Respondents.\n\n            ...\n\nCoram:      Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri.\n\n            ...\n\nPresent:    Mr.Mansur Ali Advocate for the petitioners.\n\n            Mr. K. S. Pannu, AAG Punjab.\n\n            Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.\n\n            ...\n\nK. C. Puri, J.\n<\/pre>\n
Judgment.\n<\/p>\n
            In this petition filed under Section 482<\/a> Cr.P.C, the<\/p>\n
petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.119 dated 24.4.2006, under<\/p>\n
Sections 7<\/a> of the Essential Commodities Act and 420\/120-B IPC<\/a>,<\/p>\n
registered at Police Station City, Abohar and all the subsequent<\/p>\n
proceedings taken in pursuance thereof.\n<\/p>\n
                Criminal Misc.No.6514-M of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
                        -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
           Ram Parkash Jindal,complainant filed an application<\/p>\n
before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur for the<\/p>\n
registration of a case against the petitioners on the allegations that<\/p>\n
he was working as a wholesale dealer in the name and style of M\/s.<\/p>\n
Ram Parkash Ravi Nandan at Haqiqat Rai Chowk, Abohar. He was<\/p>\n
also an authorized dealer of the National Fertilizers Limited, for<\/p>\n
Abohar. Mahavir Dhaka is a Government servant in the National<\/p>\n
Fertilizer Limited which is an authorized Government outlet,<\/p>\n
having its head office at Delhi and is having 3 or 4 manufacturing<\/p>\n
units of fertilizers in India,out of which there was one at Bhatinda.<\/p>\n
He gets fertilizers from this Company from Bathinda for selling the<\/p>\n
same to the farmers in Abohar and was further selling it to retail<\/p>\n
dealers for which the Punjab Government issued licences\/permits.<\/p>\n
The Government gave huge subsidy on this fertilizer. All the<\/p>\n
wholesale and retail dealers were to obtain a licence from the<\/p>\n
manufacturing company and they keep the accounts also. He used<\/p>\n
to get fertilizer through Mahavir Dhaka who was a Development<\/p>\n
Officer in the National Fertilizer Limited, Abohar. While using his<\/p>\n
official authority, Mahavir Dhaka supplied fertilizer directly to<\/p>\n
accused No.2 Vikrant Kumar’s firm M\/s Zamindara Pesticides &<\/p>\n
Fertilizers while utilizing the name of his firm, at village Dodan<\/p>\n
and Rajpura. The licence was obtained in the name of accused
\n                  Criminal Misc.No.6514-M of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
                          -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
No.3 of Dalip Kumar son of Balram,resident of Doda. All the<\/p>\n
above mentioned three persons have sold fertilizer to a Rajasthan<\/p>\n
based firm M\/s. S.S.Blow Chemicals & M\/s. Jai Shiv Regent<\/p>\n
Private Limited and as such they grabbed subsidy amount in lakhs,<\/p>\n
by directly obtaining the fertilizer in the name of his firm<\/p>\n
and,therefore, illegally obtained the fertilizer in the name of his<\/p>\n
firm to cheat him and sold directly to the factory instead of<\/p>\n
farmers. Mahavir Parshad Dhaka, in connivance with co-accused<\/p>\n
Nos.2 and 4, in October 2004, directly sent 3000 bags which were<\/p>\n
sent by the company to their firm. He kept on demanding money<\/p>\n
from them again and again. Accused Nos.1,2 and 4 gave him<\/p>\n
cheque of Rs.one lac each from Rajasthan Firm, for making a bill<\/p>\n
in the name of their firm, Zamindara Pesticides & Fertilizers,<\/p>\n
Rajpura. They also assured him that the cheques will be encashed<\/p>\n
on presentation to the Bank. But these cheques were dishonoured<\/p>\n
and accused No.2 closed his account in the Bank. One of the<\/p>\n
cheques was got returned from the Bank by giving wrong<\/p>\n
information to the police regarding one of the firms. Accused<\/p>\n
Nos.2 and 4 were threatening to kill him instead of giving him<\/p>\n
money.\n<\/p>\n
              On the basis of said application, the present FIR was<\/p>\n
registered.\n<\/p>\n
                  Criminal Misc.No.6514-M of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
                          -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
              The petitioners pray for quashing of the said FIR and<\/p>\n
all the subsequent proceedings on various grounds on which he has<\/p>\n
based his arguments which will be dealt with, hereinafter.<\/p>\n
              The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted<\/p>\n
that FIR was registered at the instance of Ram Parkash Jindal son<\/p>\n
of Chiranji Lal who has stated that he was working as a wholesale<\/p>\n
dealer in the name and style of M\/s. Ram Parkash Ravi Nandan at<\/p>\n
Abohar. He has further contended that he was an authorised dealer<\/p>\n
of the National Fertilizers Limited for Abohar. Mahavir Dhaka is a<\/p>\n
Government servant in the National Fertilizer Limited which is an<\/p>\n
authorised Government outlet. It has been further mentioned in the<\/p>\n
FIR that the Government gives subsidy for sale of fertilizer to the<\/p>\n
farmers. Said Mahavir Dhaka who was a Development Officer in<\/p>\n
the National Fertilizer Limited, Abohar supplied fertilizer directly<\/p>\n
to accused No.2 Vikrant Kumar’s firm M\/s Zamindara Pesticides &<\/p>\n
Fertilizers    while utilizing g the name of his firm, at villages<\/p>\n
Dodan and Rajpura. The licence was obtained in the name of<\/p>\n
accused No.3 i.e Dalip Kumar son of Balram, resident of Doda.All<\/p>\n
these threes persons have sold the fertilizer to a Rajasthan based<\/p>\n
firm M\/s. S.S.Blow Chemicals & M\/s. Jai Shiv Regent Private<\/p>\n
Limited and as such they grabbed subsidy amount in lakhs, by<\/p>\n
directly obtaining the fertilizer in the name of his firm and,
\n                Criminal Misc.No.6514-M of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
                        -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
therefore, illegally obtained fertilizer in the name of his firm to<\/p>\n
cheat him and sold directly to the factory instead of farmers. It has<\/p>\n
been further alleged in the FIR that Mahavir Dhaka, in connivance<\/p>\n
with co-accused Nos.2 and 4, directly sent 3000 bags in October,<\/p>\n
2004, which were sent by the company to their firm.<\/p>\n
           It is further contended that so far as accused Mahavir<\/p>\n
Dhaka is concerned, he was not posted at Abohar at the relevant<\/p>\n
time. He has further contended that M\/s. National Fertilizer has not<\/p>\n
been arrayed as an accused. M\/s. National Fertilizer Limited is a<\/p>\n
State run company. Not even a single bag can be taken out from<\/p>\n
the company without counting the same. The allegations against<\/p>\n
him are simply on account of his relations with the other accused.<\/p>\n
           It has been further contended that so far as the case<\/p>\n
against other accused is concerned, the same is also not proved.<\/p>\n
There was no reason for the petitioners to sell the fertilizer at<\/p>\n
Rajasthan after incurring huge expenditure on transportation. In<\/p>\n
fact, the complainant owed money to the petitioners and<\/p>\n
proceedings under Section 138<\/a> of the Negotiable Instruments Act<\/p>\n
are pending against him. It is only on account of that dispute that<\/p>\n
the present FIR has been lodged against the petitioners. The<\/p>\n
lodging of FIR is a clear abuse of the process of the Court. Mere<\/p>\n
fact that some transaction had been done in M\/s S.S.Blow
\n                   Criminal Misc.No.6514-M of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
                           -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
Chemicals and M\/s. Jai Shiv Regent Private Limited does not<\/p>\n
prove the case of the complainant. For summoning of a person,<\/p>\n
strong prima-facie case is to be made out as summoning of a<\/p>\n
person as an accused is a serious matter affecting life and liberty<\/p>\n
of that person.\n<\/p>\n
           It has been further contended that even if the entire<\/p>\n
allegations against the petitioner No.4, Mahavir Dhaka that he<\/p>\n
supplied the fertilizer in discharge of his duty as a public servant<\/p>\n
are taken on their face value, no proceedings regarding the said act<\/p>\n
can be taken without sanction under Section 197<\/a> Cr.P.C. There is<\/p>\n
no sanction against petitioner No.4. The complaint is liable to be<\/p>\n
quashed on this ground also.\n<\/p>\n
           On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant has<\/p>\n
submitted that the complaint is not the result of any malice but the<\/p>\n
fact remains that huge subsidy is given on the fertilizer and that<\/p>\n
subsidy is meant for farmers. There was no reason for petitioner<\/p>\n
Nos.1 to 3 to sell the fertilizer at a firm at Rajasthan. So, there is a<\/p>\n
clear cut case of cheating. This fact can only be established, during<\/p>\n
the course of trial. The petitioner No.4 has supplied fertilizer to<\/p>\n
petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and, on that count, he is also criminally liable.<\/p>\n
It has been further contended that charge against the petitioners has<\/p>\n
been framed and in view of authority in case Minakshi Bala
\n                Criminal Misc.No.6514-M of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
                        -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
Versus Sudhir Kumar, 1994(3) Recent Criminal Reports 123, no<\/p>\n
ground for interference is made out. He has also relied upon<\/p>\n
authority in case State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Awadh<\/p>\n
Kishore Gupta and others, 2004(1) Recent Criminal Reports<\/p>\n
(Criminal) 233.\n<\/p>\n
           The counsel for the petitioners has relied upon authority<\/p>\n
in case Dr. Monica Kumar and another Versus State of U.P<\/p>\n
and others, 2008(3) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 548 and<\/p>\n
has submitted that proceedings were quashed by the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court by holding that any prohibition or restriction<\/p>\n
contained in ordinary laws cannot act as a limitation on the<\/p>\n
constitutional power of this Court if such a case is made out.<\/p>\n
Framing of charge does not debar the Court to quash the<\/p>\n
proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
           I have carefully considered the submissions made by<\/p>\n
both sides and have gone through the record of the case.<\/p>\n
           There are two sets of accused, in the present case. The<\/p>\n
first set of accused is petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and the allegations<\/p>\n
against them are that they have directly received fertilizer from the<\/p>\n
National Fertilizer Company instead of rooting through the<\/p>\n
complainant. It is alleged that the complainant is the whole-sale<\/p>\n
dealer and no direct sale can be made to the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
                 Criminal Misc.No.6514-M of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
                         -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
            The other allegation is that petitioner Nos.1 to 3 have<\/p>\n
sold the fertilizer to M\/s. S.S.Blow Chemicals & M\/s. Jai Shiv<\/p>\n
Regent Private Limited in Rajasthan. The necessary record, in this<\/p>\n
regard, has been placed on the file.\n<\/p>\n
            The fertilizer is a highly subsidized article and the<\/p>\n
Government spends thousands of crores as subsidy on fertilizer<\/p>\n
enabling the farmers to get the fertilizer at cheap rates so that they<\/p>\n
may grow more grain which, in turn, shall be invested for the<\/p>\n
advancement of the country. The submission made by the counsel<\/p>\n
for the petitioners is to the effect that the petitioners would have<\/p>\n
spent money on carriage to Rajasthan cannot be appreciated at this<\/p>\n
stage as there is huge profit on the actual cost of fertilizer and its<\/p>\n
subsidized rates. So, that argument can only be appreciated, during<\/p>\n
the course of trial.\n<\/p>\n
            Prima-facie evidence collected by the police shows that<\/p>\n
sale has been made to a firm in Rajasthan, as detailed in the FIR,<\/p>\n
by petitioner Nos.1 to 3. Proceedings under Section 482<\/a> Cr.P.C can<\/p>\n
only be invoked in case uncontroverted allegations made in the<\/p>\n
FIR or in the complaint and the evidence collected in support of<\/p>\n
the same did not disclose commission of any offence but, in respect<\/p>\n
of petitioner Nos.1 to 3, that fact is missing. It cannot be held that<\/p>\n
the entire allegations, if taken on their face value, would not
\n                Criminal Misc.No.6514-M of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
                        -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
constitute any offence against petitioner Nos.1 to 3. In authority in<\/p>\n
case Minakshi Bala (supra), is concerned, it was held that where<\/p>\n
the police, after completion of investigation, submitted the challan<\/p>\n
and the Court took cognizance. The trial Court also framed charge.<\/p>\n
In that situation, unless a strong case of abuse of the process of the<\/p>\n
Court is made out, the provisions of Section 482<\/a> Cr.P.C cannot be<\/p>\n
invoked.\n<\/p>\n
           In authority in case State of Madhya Pradesh (supra),<\/p>\n
the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the circumstances under<\/p>\n
which the provisions of Section 482<\/a> Cr.P.C can be invoked. The<\/p>\n
case of the petitioners does not fall within any of the provisions of<\/p>\n
section 482<\/a> Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
           Therefore, the petition filed by petitioner Nos.1 to 3<\/p>\n
stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
           So far as accused\/petitioner No.4 is concerned, the<\/p>\n
allegations against him that he supplied fertilizer directly to the<\/p>\n
accused\/petitioner Nos.1 to 3 instead of selling the same to the<\/p>\n
complainant. Specific allegation against him is that on 8.4.2004, he<\/p>\n
supplied 3000 bags directly to petitioner Nos.1 to 3. Reliance has<\/p>\n
been placed on Annexure R-5 which is consolidated statement of<\/p>\n
supply of fertilizer from 1.4.2004 to 30.9.2004. The statement is<\/p>\n
stated to have been signed by the said petitioner. There is no
\n               Criminal Misc.No.6514-M of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
                       -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
evidence on the file that Mahavir Dhaka was posted in the said<\/p>\n
office on 8.4.2004. Moreover, no other officer of the National<\/p>\n
Fertilizers has been made party.        The National Fertilizer is a<\/p>\n
concern duly controlled by the Government and not even a single<\/p>\n
bag can be taken out from the said manufacturing concern without<\/p>\n
counting the same. So, supply of 3000 bags on 8.4.2004 cannot be<\/p>\n
attributed to petitioner No.4. Otherwise also, petitioner No.4 is<\/p>\n
stated to have supplied fertilizer in due discharge of his duty.<\/p>\n
Without   sanction against him under Section 197<\/a> Cr.P.C for<\/p>\n
prosecution, no prosecution can be launched against him. On this<\/p>\n
ground also, criminal proceedings against him cannot continue.<\/p>\n
          So, in view of above discussion, the FIR in question qua<\/p>\n
Mahavir Dhaka and further proceedings pursuant to that FIR,<\/p>\n
against Mahavir Dhaka stand quashed.\n<\/p>\n
          In the final analysis, the petition filed by petitioner<\/p>\n
Nos.1 to 3 stands dismissed. However, the FIR and further<\/p>\n
proceedings pursuant to that FIR against Mahavir Dhaka,<\/p>\n
petitioner No.4, stand quashed.<\/p>\n
\n\nNovember 17th ,2008.                    ( K. C. Puri )\nJaggi                                         Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Vikrant Kumar And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 17 November, 2008 Criminal Misc.No.6514-M of 2008. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc.No.6514-M of 2008. Date of decision:17-11-2008 Vikrant Kumar and others. …Petitioners. Versus State of Punjab and another. …Respondents. … Coram: Hon’ble Mr. […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-260739","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVikrant Kumar And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 17 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\/vikrant-kumar-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-17-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vikrant Kumar And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 17 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikrant-kumar-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-17-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=\"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-30T21:35:38+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vikrant-kumar-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-17-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vikrant-kumar-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-17-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vikrant Kumar And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 17 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-30T21:35:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vikrant-kumar-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-17-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2111,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vikrant-kumar-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-17-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vikrant-kumar-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-17-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vikrant-kumar-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-17-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Vikrant Kumar And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 17 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-30T21:35:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vikrant-kumar-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-17-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vikrant-kumar-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-17-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vikrant-kumar-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-17-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vikrant Kumar And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 17 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":"Vikrant Kumar And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 17 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\/vikrant-kumar-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-17-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vikrant Kumar And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 17 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikrant-kumar-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-17-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-30T21:35:38+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikrant-kumar-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-17-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikrant-kumar-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-17-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vikrant Kumar And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 17 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-30T21:35:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikrant-kumar-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-17-november-2008"},"wordCount":2111,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikrant-kumar-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-17-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikrant-kumar-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-17-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikrant-kumar-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-17-november-2008","name":"Vikrant Kumar And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 17 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-30T21:35:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikrant-kumar-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-17-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikrant-kumar-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-17-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikrant-kumar-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-17-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vikrant Kumar And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 17 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\/260739","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=260739"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260739\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=260739"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=260739"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=260739"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}