{"id":261935,"date":"2009-08-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-masih-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-20-august-2009"},"modified":"2017-07-17T07:14:07","modified_gmt":"2017-07-17T01:44:07","slug":"s-s-masih-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-20-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-masih-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-20-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"S.S.Masih vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
S.S.Masih vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 August, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n             HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR      \n\n\n\n\n                    M.Cr.C.No.2226 of 2002\n\n\n\n\n                   1.   S.S.Masih\n\n                    2.   Smt.Gayatri\n                                    ...Petitioners\n\n\n\n                            Versus\n\n\n\n                   1.   State  of Chhattisgarh\n\n                    2.   Dy.  Superintendent of Police\n\n                    3.   Smt.Hira  Bai\n                                    ...Respondents<\/pre>\n
  (Petition under Section 482<\/a> of Code of Criminal Procedure,
\n                             1973)<\/p>\n
!     Shri Ashish Surana, counsel for the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
^     Shri Sanjeev K. Agrawal, Panel lawyer for respondents No.1 and 2
\n      Shri Raj Kamal Singh, counsel for respondent No.3.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\nHonble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J \n\n\n\n       Dated:20\/08\/2009\n\n\n:       Judgment\n\n\n                             Order\n               (Delivered on 20th August, 2009)\n\n<\/pre>\n
  1.   The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482<\/a>
\n     of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `the Code’)
\n     for quashment of the F.I.R. registered in Crime No.384\/2002 at
\n     Police Station-City Kotwali, Korba.\n<\/p>\n
  2.    The  quashment is prayed for on the ground that without
\n     there being prima facie material against the petitioners, the
\n     police has registered the F.I.R. and caused serious prejudiced
\n     to the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
  3.   I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
\n     the copy of the F.I.R. and other documents filed on behalf of
\n     the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
  4.   Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that
\n     the petitioners who are counsel for respondent No.3 had filed
\n     motor accident claim case at the instance of respondent No.3
\n     before the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba
\n     which was finally dismissed vide order dated 12.4.2002 as not
\n     maintainable. After dismissal of the said petition, respondent
\n     No.3 on 4.6.2002 misbehaved petitioner No.1, also used filthy
\n     language  and threatened him. Petitioner No.1 has  made  a
\n     complaint to the Outpost Incharge Police Station, Rampur, Korba
\n     on 4.6.2002. After dismissal of the case, he has returned file
\n     to Krishna Kumar Nirala (brother-in-law of respondent No.3).
\n     Petitioner No.1 has made a complaint to the State Bar Council
\n     against respondent No.3. District Bar Association, Korba has
\n     also made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Korba on
\n     12.6.2002. Deputy Superintendent of Police has issued notice to
\n     the petitioners vide notice dated 26.6.2002 and 26.8.2002.
\n     Petitioner No.1 has also made complaints to several officers
\n     and authorities, but they have not taken any action against
\n     respondent No.3. Learned counsel further submits that  the
\n     police has registered Crime No.384\/2002 in connection with the
\n     offence punishable under Sections 294<\/a>, 323<\/a>\/34<\/a> and 420<\/a> of the
\n     Indian Penal Code and Section 3<\/a> (i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes
\n     and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act<\/a>, 1989 (in
\n     short `the Act, 1989′) against the petitioners and has issued
\n     notices to them. Learned counsel also argued that police has
\n     not taken any action at the instance of complaint made  by
\n     petitioner No.1 but has illegally took action against  the
\n     petitioners at the instance of respondent No.3. Learned counsel
\n     also  contended  that registration of F.I.R.  against  the
\n     petitioners is illegal and has caused serious prejudiced to the
\n     petitioners and same be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
5.   Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of All Cargo
\nMovers (India) Private Limited and others v. Dhanesh Badarmal
\nJain and Another1<\/a> in which the Apex Court has held that at the
\ntime of consideration the petition under Section 482<\/a> of the
\nCode against criminal prosecution for the offence punishable
\nunder Sections 406<\/a> and 420<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code, the Court
\nis required to consider the correspondences exchanged by the
\nparties and other admitted documents and if it is found to be
\nmala fide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court,
\nthe proceeding should be quashed. Learned counsel further
\nplaced reliance in the matter of Anil Ritolla alias A.K.Ritolia
\nv. State of Bihar<\/a> and another2 in which the Apex Court has held
\nthat the Court is required to consider the terms and conditions
\nof the contract and only non-compliance of any contract does
\nnot constitute the offence of cheating, therefore, proceeding
\nshould be quashed. Learned counsel also placed reliance in the
\nmatter of Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar3<\/a> in which the
\nApex Court has held that proceeding was quashed on the ground
\nof unexplained delay of about 17 years.\n<\/p>\n
  6.    On  the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
\n     argued that while dealing with the quashment of the F.I.R. in
\n     criminal proceeding, the Court is required to see prima facie
\n     material collected on behalf of the prosecution and if the same
\n     is admitted in its face value that would be sufficient for
\n     warranting conviction. Learned counsel further argued that in
\n     the present case investigation is in progress and investigating
\n     officer has issued notices to the respondents for submission of
\n     their  caste  certificate, but instead of cooperating  the
\n     investigation  they have filed this present petition.  The
\n     investigating  officer  has not committed  any  illegality
\n     resulting into miscarriage of justice or has not caused any
\n     serious prejudiced to the present petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
  7.    According to the case of the petitioners, investigating
\n     agency has registered F.I.R. in Crime No.384\/2002 at Police
\n  Station Civil Lines, Korba (virtually Ajak, Korb) in connection
\n     with the offence punishable under Sections 294<\/a>, 420<\/a> and 323<\/a>\/34<\/a>
\n     of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3<\/a> (i) (x) of the Act,
\n     1989. Investigating agency has not concluded its investigation.
\n     They have issued notices to the petitioners relating to caste
\n     of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
  8.   Exercise of power under Section 482<\/a> of the Code in a case
\n     of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section
\n     does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves
\n     the  inherent power which the Court possessed  before  the
\n     enactment of the Code<\/a>. This provision is meant only to make
\n     such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order
\n     under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any
\n     Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n
  9.     While  dealing  with  the  question  of  quashment  of
\n     investigation, the Apex Court in the matter of  M\/s.Jayant
\n     Vitamins Ltd., v. Chaitanyakumar<\/a> and another4 has held that the
\n     investigation into an offence is a statutory function of the
\n     police and the superintendence thereof is vested in the State
\n     Government  and  the  Court is not justified  without  any
\n     compelling  and justifiable reason to interfere  with  the
\n     investigation. Thus where the investigation which is still on
\n     its way and the further investigation in the offence is legally
\n     permissible as contemplated by      S. 173(8)<\/a> of Cr.P.C., the
\n     quashing of investigation by the High Court would  not  be
\n     permissible.\n<\/p>\n
  10.   While  dealing  with the question of quashment  of  the
\n     F.I.R., the Apex Court in the matter of Satvinder Kaur v. State
\n     (Govt.of NCT of Delhi<\/a>) and another5 has held that if the F.I.R.
\n     prima facie discloses commission of an offence, then the Court
\n     does not normally stop the investigation. Para 14 of the said
\n     judgment reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
          “14.  Further, the legal position is well  settled
\n          that if an offence is disclosed the court will not
\n          normally interfere with an investigation into  the
\n          case  and  will  permit  investigation  into   the
\n          offence alleged to be completed. If the FIR, prima
\n          facie, discloses the commission of an offence, the
\n          Court  does  not  normally stop the investigation,
\n          for,  to do so would be to trench upon the  lawful
\n          power of the police to investigate into cognizable
\n          offences.  It is also settled by a long course  of
\n          decisions  of this Court that for the  purpose  of
\n          exercising  its power under Section  482<\/a>  CrPC  to
\n          quash  an FIR or a complaint, the High Court would
\n          have  to  proceed  entirely on the  basis  of  the
\n          allegations made in the complaint or the documents
\n          accompanying   the  same  per  se;   it   has   no
\n          jurisdiction   to  examine  the   correctness   or
\n          otherwise of the allegations.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  11.   While dealing with the same question, the Apex Court in
\n     the matter of State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy<\/a> and another6
\n     has held that F.I.R. did not disclose commission of an offence
\n     without anything being added or subtracted from the recitals
\n     therein. Though the FIR is not intended to be an encyclopedia
\n     of the background scenario, yet even skeletal features must
\n     disclose the commission of an offence. Para 12 of the said
\n     judgment reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
          “12.  So far as Criminal Appeals Nos.1183, 1193-96
\n          of  2003 and criminal appeals arising out of  SLPs
\n          (Cri.)  Nos.2191,  2632-33 and  3463  of  203  are
\n          concerned,  we find that the FIR did not  disclose
\n          commission  of  an offence without anything  being
\n          added  or  subtracted from the  recitals  therein.
\n          Though   the  FIR  is  not  intended  to   be   an
\n          encyclopedia of the background scenario, yet  even
\n          skeletal features must disclose the commission  of
\n          an offence. The position is not so in these cases.
\n          Therefore, the High Court’s interference does  not
\n          suffer  any legal infirmity, though the reasonings
\n          indicated  by  the  High Court  do  not  have  our
\n          approval.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  12.  In the present case, the petitioners have alleged that the
\n     F.I.R. has been registered at the instance of respondent No.3
\n     and notices have been issued to them for submission of their
\n     caste certificate. Notice reveals that the F.I.R. has been
\n     registered in connection with the offence punishable under
\n     Sections 294<\/a>, 420<\/a> and 323<\/a>\/34<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code  and
\n     Section 3<\/a> (i) (x) of the Act, 1989.  Document filed on behalf
\n     of  the petitioners reveals that some incident took  place
\n     probably on 12.4.2002 and petitioner No.1 made a complaint to
\n     different authorities, but no action has been taken on the
\n     basis of the complaint made by the petitioner, but police has
\n     initiated investigation on the basis of complaint made  by
\n     respondent No.3 against the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
13.  From perusal of the documents it appears that the present
\npetitioners have not made any complaint to Ajak, Korba who is
\ninvestigated the complaint\/information of the commission of the
\noffence made by respondent No.3, but has made complaints to the
\ndifferent authorities. This is not a case where Ajak, Korba has
\nrefused to initiate investigation on the basis of the complaint
\nmade by the petitioners and has initiated the investigation on
\nthe basis of complaint made by respondent No.3 which may be
\ntreated as bias or mala fide investigation, but in the present
\ncase ,Ajak, Korba has registered the F.I.R. on the basis of
\ninformation of the commission of cognizable offence given by
\nrespondent No.3 against the petitioners. If the F.I.R. has not
\nbeen lodged by police outpost, Rampur on the basis of complaint
\nmade to it by petitioner No.1, then petitioner No.1 or
\npetitioners may have recourse of taking appropriate action in
\nterms of Chapter XV of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
  14.   In  the matter of Anil (Supra), the Apex Court has held
\n  that dispute between the parties was breach of the conditions
\n     of the acquisition and documents and transactions reveals that
\n     respondent has not complied with the condition of the contract,
\n     that was purely the case of civil nature and only on the ground
\n     of breach of any condition of the contract, criminal proceeding
\n     was not proper. The case of Anil (Supra) is distinguishable on
\n     the facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
  15.  In the matter of State of A.P. (supra), the Apex Court has
\n     held that after taking into consideration the correspondences
\n     exchanged between the parties, dispute was found to be of civil
\n     nature. In the present case, complainant\/respondent No.3 has
\n     made allegation which has not been investigated as yet and in
\n     the  present case there is no correspondences between  the
\n     parties. The case of State of A.P. (supra) is distinguishable
\n     on the facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
  16.   In the matter of Vakil (supra), the Apex Court has held
\n     that proceeding was quashed on the ground of unexplained delay
\n     of about 17 years. In the present case, just after lodging the
\n     F.I.R.  the petitioners have knocked this High  Court  for
\n     invoking extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482<\/a>
\n     of the Code. The case of Vakil (supra) is distinguishable on
\n     the facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
  17.   In  the present case, F.I.R. has been registered at the
\n     instance of the complainant\/respondent No.3 in connection with
\n     the offence punishable under Sections 294<\/a>, 420<\/a> and 323<\/a>\/34<\/a> of
\n     the Indian Penal Code and Section 3<\/a> (i) (x) of the Act, 1989.
\n     The offence is under investigation. Further investigation has
\n     been  stayed  by  this Court vide order dated  11.12.2002.
\n     Investigating Officer has not concluded its investigation and
\n     has not submitted final report in terms of Section 173<\/a> of the
\n     Code for taking cognizance against the petitioners or  for
\n     closing of investigation on the ground of deficiency of the
\n     evidence. If F.I.R. prima facie discloses the commission of an
\n     offence then it can not be quashed in exercise of inherent
\n     jurisdiction even in the case of F.I.R., not containing all
\n     ingredients of offence. The Court should wait for completion of
\n     investigation and even after completion of investigation, if
\n     Court finds absence of essential ingredients of the offence,
\n     then  the Court may exercise the jurisdiction in terms  of
\n     Section 482<\/a> of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
  18.  In the present case, investigation has not been concluded
\n     as yet, therefore this petition is pre-mature. I do not find
\n     any  ground  for interference in exercise of extraordinary
\n     jurisdiction to quash the F.I.R.\n<\/p>\n
  19.  Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is liable
\n     to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Stay order granted
\n     on 11.12.2002 stands vacated.\n<\/p>\n
                                               J U D G E<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court S.S.Masih vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 August, 2009 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.Cr.C.No.2226 of 2002 1. S.S.Masih 2. Smt.Gayatri …Petitioners Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh 2. Dy. Superintendent of Police 3. Smt.Hira Bai …Respondents (Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) ! Shri Ashish Surana, counsel […]<\/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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-261935","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.S.Masih vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 August, 2009 - 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\/s-s-masih-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-20-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.S.Masih vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-masih-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-20-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-17T01:44:07+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\\\/s-s-masih-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-20-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-masih-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-20-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.S.Masih vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-17T01:44:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-masih-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-20-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2133,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-masih-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-20-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-masih-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-20-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-masih-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-20-august-2009\",\"name\":\"S.S.Masih vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-17T01:44:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-masih-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-20-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-masih-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-20-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-masih-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-20-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.S.Masih vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"S.S.Masih vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 August, 2009 - 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\/s-s-masih-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-20-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.S.Masih vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-masih-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-20-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-17T01:44:07+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\/s-s-masih-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-20-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-masih-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-20-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.S.Masih vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-17T01:44:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-masih-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-20-august-2009"},"wordCount":2133,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-masih-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-20-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-masih-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-20-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-masih-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-20-august-2009","name":"S.S.Masih vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-17T01:44:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-masih-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-20-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-masih-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-20-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-masih-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-20-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.S.Masih vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 August, 2009"}]},{"@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\/261935","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=261935"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261935\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=261935"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=261935"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=261935"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}