{"id":262524,"date":"2009-10-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neelu-chopra-anr-vs-bharti-on-7-october-2009"},"modified":"2019-03-31T23:58:43","modified_gmt":"2019-03-31T18:28:43","slug":"neelu-chopra-anr-vs-bharti-on-7-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neelu-chopra-anr-vs-bharti-on-7-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Neelu Chopra & Anr vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Neelu Chopra & Anr vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: V Sirpurkar<\/div>\n
Bench: V.S. Sirpurkar, Deepak Verma<\/div>\n
                                                                                    REPORTABLE\n\n                                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n                         CRIMINAL       APPEAL No. 949 OF 2003\n\n\n\nNEELU CHOPRA & ANR.                                               ...     Appellant(s)\n\n                             Versus\n\nBHARTI                                                             ...    Respondent(s)\n\n\n\n                                      J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
    V.S. SIRPURKAR,J.\n<\/p>\n
\n
         1.   This appeal is against the judgment of the Punjab<\/p>\n
         & Haryana High Court whereby the petition for quashing<\/p>\n
         the criminal proceedings against the appellants pending<\/p>\n
         before the trial court has been dismissed.<\/p>\n
         2.   The factual scenario is that the appellant Neelu<\/p>\n
         Chopra and Krishan Sarup Chopra are                  husband and wife<\/p>\n
         and the respondent Bharti is their                    daughter-in-law.<\/p>\n
         Bharti was married in the year 1984 to one Rajesh, the<\/p>\n
         son of present appellants.               However,        as     per     the<\/p>\n
         version    of   the     respondent    the      married    life    was   not<\/p>\n
         smooth on account of unreasonable demand of dowry and<\/p>\n
         the misbehaviour on the part of husband Rajesh and his<\/p>\n
         parents,     the      appellants     herein.          Ultimately,       on<\/p>\n
         24.12.1993      a    complaint    came    to    be   filed     before   the
\nJudicial      Magistrate       Ist    Class,        Gidderbaha.      The<\/p>\n
complaint     was accepted in the sense that the learned<\/p>\n
Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 25.1.1994 took<\/p>\n
the cognizance         of the offences under Sections 406,<\/p>\n
498A read with 114 IPC<\/a>.            This order of cognizance was<\/p>\n
challenged by the accused persons. Rajesh is reported<\/p>\n
to have expired on 6.1.2006.               The High Court, however,<\/p>\n
did not agree to quash the complaint and took a view<\/p>\n
that the complaint did show the material sufficient to<\/p>\n
proceed     against    the     appellants.           The    High    court,<\/p>\n
however,     expressed      that     it    would     be    open    to     the<\/p>\n
Magistrate    to     exempt    the    personal       presence      of     the<\/p>\n
appellants.    3.\n<\/p>\n
3.    Mr.    M.N.Krishnamani,             learned     senior       counsel<\/p>\n
appearing    for     the    appellants      painstakingly          took    us<\/p>\n
though the original complaint as also the allied facts<\/p>\n
relevant     for      the     determination         of     the     present<\/p>\n
controversy.       It was pointed out by the learned senior<\/p>\n
counsel that the marriage had taken place way back in<\/p>\n
the   year    1984     while    the       complaint       was    filed     on<\/p>\n
24.12.1993 i.e. after about nine years of the marriage.<\/p>\n
It was further pointed out that two daughters were born<\/p>\n
to the complainant and presently the complainant along<\/p>\n
with his daughter is residing in the same house but on<\/p>\n
the different floor. Learned senior counsel points out
\nthat     those daughters are now 22 and 19 years of age.<\/p>\n
He further points out that presently the age of the<\/p>\n
first appellant is 76 years while her husband is of 80<\/p>\n
years.       Learned senior counsel, however, besides these<\/p>\n
facts, laid great stress on the fact that the complaint<\/p>\n
is     absolutely      vague        and   silent      as   regards       the<\/p>\n
allegation against the present appellants.<\/p>\n
4.     We have seen the complaint very carefully.                   From a<\/p>\n
bare reading of the complaint it is apparent that the<\/p>\n
problem      started        barely    after     six    months      of    the<\/p>\n
marriage.       In    paragraph       3   of   the    complaint,    it    is<\/p>\n
stated       that    all     the    accused    came   to   complainant’s<\/p>\n
parents house at Gidderbaha and asked her parents to<\/p>\n
give the complainant more gold and other articles as<\/p>\n
dowry otherwise they would leave the complainant there<\/p>\n
and Rajesh would be married second time.                   In paragraph<\/p>\n
4, the complaint is            against Rajesh in the sense that<\/p>\n
the accused Rajesh asked the complainant to hand over<\/p>\n
the ornaments and clothes to his parents lest they are<\/p>\n
lost    in    the    way.      On    reaching    to    Delhi    when     the<\/p>\n
ornament were asked back by the complainant, they were<\/p>\n
not returned back.             When we see the complaint as a<\/p>\n
whole it is basically against the accused Rajesh.                        All
\nthe     allegations     are     against      Rajesh.         There     is<\/p>\n
undoubtedly some reference to the present appellants,<\/p>\n
but what strikes us is that there are no particulars<\/p>\n
given as to date on which the ornaments were handed<\/p>\n
over, as      to   the exact number         of ornaments or their<\/p>\n
description and as to the date when the ornaments were<\/p>\n
asked back and were refused. Even the weight of the<\/p>\n
ornaments is not mentioned in the              complaint and       it is<\/p>\n
a general and        vague complaint that the ornaments were<\/p>\n
sometime given in the custody of the appellants and<\/p>\n
they were not returned. What strikes us more is that<\/p>\n
even in        paragraph 10         of the complaint where the<\/p>\n
complainant says that           she asked for her clothes and<\/p>\n
ornaments      which   were    given   to    the   accused   and     they<\/p>\n
refused to give these back, the date is significantly<\/p>\n
absent.      It seems from the order taking cognizance that<\/p>\n
the learned Magistrate has mentioned about the version<\/p>\n
of    the    complainant       is   supported      by   Bhagwati      and<\/p>\n
Dharampal to the fact that the ornaments were entrusted<\/p>\n
to    Krishan      Saroop     and   Rajesh     while    clothes      were<\/p>\n
entrusted to Rakhi and they refused to hand over the<\/p>\n
same.       Even their statements could not be better than<\/p>\n
the vague complaint.           Even about the clothes, the date
\non which they were handed over to Rakhee who happens to<\/p>\n
be the daughter of the present appellants and the other<\/p>\n
details are very significantly absent.                 It was also the<\/p>\n
version    of    the    complainant       that   she    was    beaten   in<\/p>\n
support of which she has filed a certificate from AIIMS<\/p>\n
hospital, New Delhi.          However, in the complaint, it is<\/p>\n
not seen as to on which date                she was beaten and by<\/p>\n
whom.    It is significant to note that the matter<\/p>\n
against the Rakhee, the 4th original accused has already<\/p>\n
been dropped as she was in fact not even the resident<\/p>\n
of the same house.\n<\/p>\n
5.        In    order   to   lodge    a    proper      compliant,     mere<\/p>\n
mention    of    the    sections     and   the   language       of    those<\/p>\n
sections is not be all and end of the matter.                     What is<\/p>\n
required to be brought to the notice of the court is<\/p>\n
the particulars of the offence committed by each and<\/p>\n
every accused and the role played by each and every<\/p>\n
accused in committing of that offence.                 When we see the<\/p>\n
complaint, the complaint is sadly vague.                      It does not<\/p>\n
show as to which accused has committed what offence and<\/p>\n
what is the exact role played by these appellants in<\/p>\n
the     commission      of   offence.        There     could     be   said<\/p>\n
something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made
\nagainst him more precisely but he                  is no more and has<\/p>\n
already expired.         Under such circumstances, it would be<\/p>\n
an abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to<\/p>\n
continue     against     the    aged        parents    of   Rajesh,     the<\/p>\n
present appellants herein on the basis of vague and<\/p>\n
general complaint which is silent about the precise<\/p>\n
acts of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
6.    The    High    Court     has     merely      mentioned    that    the<\/p>\n
allegation in the complaint are of retaining jewellery<\/p>\n
articles     in     possession         of    the      husband   and     the<\/p>\n
petitioners.       Now    if     the        articles     were   in     the<\/p>\n
possession of the husband, there is no question of the<\/p>\n
present     appellants         being        in   possession      of     the<\/p>\n
jewellery.        This is apart from the fact that it has<\/p>\n
already been       expressed by us that there is no mention<\/p>\n
of the date on which           the said ornaments, if any,             were<\/p>\n
entrusted to the appellants or even the date when they<\/p>\n
were demanded back and were refused to be given back by<\/p>\n
the appellants or any one of them.                      Insofar as the<\/p>\n
offence under Section 498A<\/a> IPC is concerned, we do not<\/p>\n
find any material or allegation worth the name against<\/p>\n
the present appellants.           All the allegations appear to<\/p>\n
be   against the Rajesh.\n<\/p>\n
         7.    This is apart from the fact that despite service of<\/p>\n
         notice, the complainant neither appeared before this<\/p>\n
         court nor engaged any counsel to represent her.             Under<\/p>\n
         the   circumstances    we   are   of   the     opinion   that   the<\/p>\n
         judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside. It<\/p>\n
         is, accordingly, set aside and the order of the learned<\/p>\n
         Magistrate    taking        cognizance    is     quashed.       The<\/p>\n
         complaint is quashed under Section 482<\/a> Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
         8.    The appeal is allowed accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                                ……………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                (V.S.SIRPURKAR)<\/p>\n
                                            ………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                            (DEEPAK VERMA)<\/p>\n
New Delhi,
\nOctober 7, 2009.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Neelu Chopra & Anr vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009 Author: V Sirpurkar Bench: V.S. Sirpurkar, Deepak Verma REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 949 OF 2003 NEELU CHOPRA & ANR. … Appellant(s) Versus BHARTI … Respondent(s) J U D G M E N […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-262524","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNeelu Chopra & Anr vs Bharti on 7 October, 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\/neelu-chopra-anr-vs-bharti-on-7-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Neelu Chopra & Anr vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neelu-chopra-anr-vs-bharti-on-7-october-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=\"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-31T18:28:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neelu-chopra-anr-vs-bharti-on-7-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neelu-chopra-anr-vs-bharti-on-7-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Neelu Chopra & Anr vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-31T18:28:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neelu-chopra-anr-vs-bharti-on-7-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1264,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neelu-chopra-anr-vs-bharti-on-7-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neelu-chopra-anr-vs-bharti-on-7-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neelu-chopra-anr-vs-bharti-on-7-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Neelu Chopra & Anr vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-31T18:28:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neelu-chopra-anr-vs-bharti-on-7-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neelu-chopra-anr-vs-bharti-on-7-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neelu-chopra-anr-vs-bharti-on-7-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Neelu Chopra & Anr vs Bharti on 7 October, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Neelu Chopra & Anr vs Bharti on 7 October, 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\/neelu-chopra-anr-vs-bharti-on-7-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Neelu Chopra & Anr vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neelu-chopra-anr-vs-bharti-on-7-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-31T18:28:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neelu-chopra-anr-vs-bharti-on-7-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neelu-chopra-anr-vs-bharti-on-7-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Neelu Chopra & Anr vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-31T18:28:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neelu-chopra-anr-vs-bharti-on-7-october-2009"},"wordCount":1264,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neelu-chopra-anr-vs-bharti-on-7-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neelu-chopra-anr-vs-bharti-on-7-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neelu-chopra-anr-vs-bharti-on-7-october-2009","name":"Neelu Chopra & Anr vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-31T18:28:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neelu-chopra-anr-vs-bharti-on-7-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neelu-chopra-anr-vs-bharti-on-7-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neelu-chopra-anr-vs-bharti-on-7-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Neelu Chopra & Anr vs Bharti on 7 October, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/262524","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=262524"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262524\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262524"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262524"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262524"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}