{"id":268364,"date":"2010-04-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/benu-kumar-ghose-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010"},"modified":"2016-01-05T18:30:18","modified_gmt":"2016-01-05T13:00:18","slug":"benu-kumar-ghose-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/benu-kumar-ghose-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Benu Kumar Ghose vs Unknown on 21 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Orissa High Court<\/div>\n
Benu Kumar Ghose vs Unknown on 21 April, 2010<\/div>\n
                                 ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK\n                                         CRLMC No. 2136 of 2008\n\n           This is an application under Section 482<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n\n                                                      -----------\n<\/pre>\n
           Benu Kumar Ghose                                          .......                       Petitioner\n\n                                                      -Versus-\n\n           Harekrushna Mahasuara                                    .......                        Opp. Party\n\n                                    For Petitioner:          M\/s. Bigyan Kumar Sharma,\n                                                                  A.K.Mohapatra\n                                                                  and R.K.Sahu.\n                                    For Opp. Party:          M\/s. B.N.Das.\n\n                                                         --------------\n           P R E S E N T:\n\n                           THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE B.K.PATEL\n<\/pre>\n
           —————————————————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
                                    Date of Judgment: 21.4.2010\n<\/p>\n
           —————————————————————————————————
\nB.K.Patel, J.              Petitioner, who is accused in I.C.C.No.316 of 2007 instituted<\/p>\n
           by opposite party-complainant in the court of S.D.J.M., Puri, has filed<\/p>\n
           this application under Section 482<\/a>, Cr.P.C<\/a>. for quashing the order dated<\/p>\n
           9.10.2007 by which cognizance of offences under Sections 406<\/a> and 420<\/a>,<\/p>\n
           I.P.C<\/a>. was taken and process was issued for his appearance.<\/p>\n
           2.              Complainant’s case is that the accused executed an<\/p>\n
           agreement for sale of his undivided share in the property as described in<\/p>\n
           the schedule to the agreement and with regard to which Civil Suit<\/p>\n
           bearing C.S.No.148 of 2003 and I.A. No.114 of 2003 for injunction on<\/p>\n
           the ground of preferential right are subjudice in the court of Civil Judge
\n                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
(Senior Division), Puri.   In terms of the agreement, the complainant<\/p>\n
paid    instalment of Rs.50,000\/- to        the accused.      Thereafter,<\/p>\n
the complainant sent a letter to the accused to come to Puri to execute<\/p>\n
sale deed on receipt of balance consideration amount of Rs.3,25,000\/-.<\/p>\n
The accused deliberately returned the letter. Therefore, the complainant<\/p>\n
sent pleader notice, which was received by the accused on 3.2.2006.<\/p>\n
Said letter was also cunningly returned by the accused. Thus, accused<\/p>\n
in stead of complying with the condition in the agreement to execute<\/p>\n
sale deed within two months, has cheated the complainant for<\/p>\n
Rs.50,000\/-.   On the other hand accused in his reply to the pleader<\/p>\n
notice stated that advance amount of Rs.50,000\/- has been forfeited.<\/p>\n
On the basis of such averments it was asserted by the complainant that<\/p>\n
the accused is liable to be proceeded for commission of offences under<\/p>\n
Section 406<\/a>, 420<\/a> and 506<\/a>, I.P.C<\/a>. On receipt of complaint petition,<\/p>\n
statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200<\/a>, Cr.P.C<\/a>.<\/p>\n
and enquiry was conducted under Section 202<\/a>, Cr.P.C<\/a>., in course of<\/p>\n
which one witness was examined. On the basis of averments made in<\/p>\n
the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant and the<\/p>\n
statement of the witness, the impugned order was passed.<\/p>\n
3.          It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that<\/p>\n
the petitioner has a share in his ancestral property situated at Puri. By<\/p>\n
agreement dated 19.4.2004 the petitioner agreed to sale his undivided<\/p>\n
share over the property to the complainant for Rs.3,75,000\/-. As per the<\/p>\n
terms and conditions of agreement, the opposite party paid Rs.50,000\/-
\n                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
as first instalment and the balance amount of Rs.3,25,000\/- was<\/p>\n
payable    on or before 18.6.2004. Despite repeated requests made<\/p>\n
by the petitioner, the opposite party failed to pay the balance amount for<\/p>\n
which the petitioner suffered loss.   In stead of instituting appropriate<\/p>\n
proceeding in Civil Court, the petitioner has maliciously instituted I.C.C.<\/p>\n
316 of 2007, though the dispute between the parties is civil in nature. It<\/p>\n
was argued that plain reading of the complaint petition clearly shows<\/p>\n
that petitioner’s grievance relates to alleged violation of agreement for<\/p>\n
sale executed by the parties. Even if averments made in the complaint<\/p>\n
petition are accepted on face value, the same do not indicate<\/p>\n
commission of offence of either cheating or misappropriation.           In<\/p>\n
support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon<\/p>\n
decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in V. Y. Jose & Anr. V. State of<\/p>\n
Gujarat & Anr<\/a>.: (2009) 42 OCR (SC) 488 and          Devendra & Ors. v.<\/p>\n
State of U.P. & Anr<\/a>.: (2009) 43 OCR (SC) 680, and of this Court in<\/p>\n
Lilasons Breweries Limited & another v. Sujata Manjari Pati:<\/p>\n
(2009) 43 OCR 5.\n<\/p>\n
4.            In reply, it was contended that the petitioner took<\/p>\n
Rs.50,000\/- from the opposite party without any intention to transfer<\/p>\n
any property to the opposite party. In fact the petitioner did not have<\/p>\n
any transferable right over the property described in the schedule to the<\/p>\n
agreement for sale. In spite of steps taken by the opposite party to pay<\/p>\n
balance amount towards consideration, the petitioner did not come<\/p>\n
forward to execute the sale deed. Therefore, it is obvious that the
\n                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner never had any intention to sell his share in the property to the<\/p>\n
opposite   party.   However,    he    induced     the<\/p>\n
opposite party to pay to him Rs.50,000\/- on false pretext.<\/p>\n
5.          In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
produced in Court copy of the agreement for sale dated 19.4.2004<\/p>\n
executed by the petitioner on the first part and the opposite party on the<\/p>\n
second part. Material part of the agreement containing the terms and<\/p>\n
conditions read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
            “W H E R E A S the First party is one of the owners of the
\n            property mentioned in Schedule below:-
\n            AND WHEREAS the said Vendor has agreed to sell his
\n            undivided share of the property mentioned in the Schedule
\n            below at Puri in consideration of the sum of Rs.3,75,000\/-
\n            (Rupees three lakhs seventy five thousand) only to the
\n            purchaser;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            AND WHEREAS the Vendor has received a sum of
\n            Rs.450,000\/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only by instalment from
\n            the purchaser for sale and transfer the said undivided share of
\n            the property mentioned in the Schedule below at Puri:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH AND IT IS
\n            HEREBY AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO
\n            as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            1.      The purchaser shall pay the balance amount a sum of
\n            Rs.3,25,000\/- (Rupees Three Lakhs twenty five thousand) only
\n            to the vendor at the time of Registration of the said undivided
\n            share of the said property in favour of the purchaser by a Sale
\n            Deed within two months from the date of this Agreement i.e.
\n            18.6.2004.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2.      The purchaser shall pay the balance amount of money
\n            within two months from this Agreement i.e. on 18.6.2004
\n            otherwise the instalment money i.e. Rs.50,000\/- (Rupees Fifty
\n            thousand) only will be forfeited and the said agreement will be
\n            cancelled.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.          It is obvious that the petitioner explicitly agreed to sale his<\/p>\n
undivided share in the property mentioned in the schedule to the<\/p>\n
agreement in his capacity as one of the owners for a total consideration<\/p>\n
of Rs.3,75,000\/-. It is also obvious that petitioner had already received<\/p>\n
sum of Rs.50,000\/- by the time the agreement was executed.                    It was
\n                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
further stipulated that the petitioner would execute registered sale deed<\/p>\n
in respect of his undivided share over the property           and      the<\/p>\n
opposite party will pay to the petitioner Rs.3,25,000\/- on or before<\/p>\n
18.6.2004. In case opposite party failed to pay the balance amount on or<\/p>\n
before 18.6.2004, he shall forfeit the installment amount of Rs.50,000\/-<\/p>\n
and the agreement shall stand cancelled. It is alleged in the complaint<\/p>\n
that petitioner did not execute the sale deed in spite of the fact that the<\/p>\n
opposite party was all along ready and willing to pay the balance<\/p>\n
consideration amount of Rs.3,25,000\/-.        On a bare reading of the<\/p>\n
complaint petition, it is found that the petitioner has not made out a<\/p>\n
case that at the time of execution of the agreement between the parties<\/p>\n
there was dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner. Moreover,<\/p>\n
subject matter of agreement for sale is the undivided share of the<\/p>\n
petitioner in the property described in the schedule to the agreement.<\/p>\n
Petitioner has annexed pleader notice under Annexure-3 and reply<\/p>\n
thereto under Annexure-4 to this application. Pleader notice under<\/p>\n
Annexure-3 does not bear any date. In the said pleader notice the<\/p>\n
petitioner has been impressed upon that in case he failed or neglected to<\/p>\n
carry out his part of the contract in terms of agreement dated 19.4.2004<\/p>\n
within 15 days from the date of despatch of the notice, the opposite<\/p>\n
party shall institute suit for specific performance of the agreement along<\/p>\n
with prayer for damages and cost.      In the reply to the pleader notice<\/p>\n
dated 10.2.2006 under Annexure-4, it has been categorically mentioned<\/p>\n
that the pleader notice was received by the petitioner on 3.2.2006.
\n                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
While admitting execution of agreement to sale dated 19.6.2004, it has<\/p>\n
been mentioned therein that       in   terms of agreement,     installment<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.50,000\/- paid by the opposite party has been forfeited<\/p>\n
due to failure and negligence on the part of the opposite party to pay<\/p>\n
balance consideration amount in spite of repeated requests for which<\/p>\n
the petitioner suffered loss. Also it has been mentioned that in case the<\/p>\n
opposite party wanted to purchase petitioner’s undivided share in the<\/p>\n
property, he may contract afresh with the petitioner. Certified copy of<\/p>\n
the order sheet in I.C.C.No.316 of 2007 reveals that the complaint<\/p>\n
petition was presented in Court on 7.8.2007.\n<\/p>\n
7.          Neither the complaint petition nor any of the circumstances<\/p>\n
narrated above indicate existence of the dishonest intention on the part<\/p>\n
of the petitioner either at the time of execution of agreement or<\/p>\n
thereafter. There is absolutely no doubt that the dispute between the<\/p>\n
parties relates to allegation of breach of contractual obligation under the<\/p>\n
agreement to sale dated 19.4.2004. Existence of dishonest intention is<\/p>\n
one of the essential ingredients of offence of cheating punishable under<\/p>\n
Section 420<\/a>,I.P.C<\/a>. as well as misappropriation punishable under Section<\/p>\n
406<\/a>,I.P.C<\/a>. It has been reiterated in V.Y.Jose & Anr. (supra) that for the<\/p>\n
purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the complainant is<\/p>\n
required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention<\/p>\n
at the time of making promise or representation. Even in a case where<\/p>\n
allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to<\/p>\n
keep his promise, in absence of a culpable intention at the time of
\n                                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
making initial promise being absent, no offence under Section 420<\/a> of the<\/p>\n
I.P.C. can be said to have been made out. It is well settled that where<\/p>\n
the allegations made in the first information report    or the complaint,<\/p>\n
even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety<\/p>\n
do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the<\/p>\n
accused. High Court can exercise inherent power under Section 482<\/a>,<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C<\/a>. in order to prevent abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to<\/p>\n
secure the ends of justice for quashing the criminal proceeding. A matter<\/p>\n
which essentially involves dispute of a civil nature should not be allowed<\/p>\n
to be the subject matter     of criminal offence, the latter being not a<\/p>\n
shortcut of executing a decree which is non-existent.        The superior<\/p>\n
Courts with a view to maintain purity in the administration of justice,<\/p>\n
should not allow abuse of the process of Court. They have a duty in<\/p>\n
terms of Section 483<\/a> of the Cr.P.C to supervise the functioning of the<\/p>\n
Trial Courts. Placing reliance upon the decision in Mahindra &<\/p>\n
Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and another v. Rajiv Dubey<\/a>, 2006<\/p>\n
(Supp.1) OLR 240 this Court has pointed out in Lilasons Breweries<\/p>\n
Limited & another (supra) that in the      absence     of   any   material<\/p>\n
on record or even any allegation to the effect that the accused persons<\/p>\n
fraudulently or dishonestly deceived or dishonestly misappropriated or<\/p>\n
converted to their own use or used, or disposed of any amount, the<\/p>\n
order of taking cognizance was found to have passed without application<\/p>\n
of mind. Continuance of the proceeding on the basis of such order was,<\/p>\n
therefore, held to be an abuse of process of Court.\n<\/p>\n
                                            8<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
   8.              In view of the above, the CRLMC is allowed. The impugned<\/p>\n
   order and the proceeding in 1.C.C. No.316 of 2007 in the court of<\/p>\n
   learned S.D.J.M., Puri are quashed.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                                  …………………….\n<\/p>\n
                                                   B.K.Patel,J.\n<\/p>\n
\n
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
\nDated 21st April, 2010\/sks\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Orissa High Court Benu Kumar Ghose vs Unknown on 21 April, 2010 ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK CRLMC No. 2136 of 2008 This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ———– Benu Kumar Ghose ……. Petitioner -Versus- Harekrushna Mahasuara ……. Opp. Party For Petitioner: M\/s. Bigyan Kumar Sharma, A.K.Mohapatra and R.K.Sahu. […]<\/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":[8,25],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-268364","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-orissa-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBenu Kumar Ghose vs Unknown on 21 April, 2010 - 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\/benu-kumar-ghose-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Benu Kumar Ghose vs Unknown on 21 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/benu-kumar-ghose-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-05T13:00:18+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/benu-kumar-ghose-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/benu-kumar-ghose-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Benu Kumar Ghose vs Unknown on 21 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-05T13:00:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/benu-kumar-ghose-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1897,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Orissa High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/benu-kumar-ghose-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/benu-kumar-ghose-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/benu-kumar-ghose-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Benu Kumar Ghose vs Unknown on 21 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-05T13:00:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/benu-kumar-ghose-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/benu-kumar-ghose-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/benu-kumar-ghose-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Benu Kumar Ghose vs Unknown on 21 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Benu Kumar Ghose vs Unknown on 21 April, 2010 - 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\/benu-kumar-ghose-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Benu Kumar Ghose vs Unknown on 21 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/benu-kumar-ghose-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-05T13:00:18+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/benu-kumar-ghose-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/benu-kumar-ghose-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Benu Kumar Ghose vs Unknown on 21 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-05T13:00:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/benu-kumar-ghose-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010"},"wordCount":1897,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Orissa High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/benu-kumar-ghose-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/benu-kumar-ghose-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/benu-kumar-ghose-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010","name":"Benu Kumar Ghose vs Unknown on 21 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-05T13:00:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/benu-kumar-ghose-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/benu-kumar-ghose-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/benu-kumar-ghose-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Benu Kumar Ghose vs Unknown on 21 April, 2010"}]},{"@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\/268364","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=268364"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268364\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268364"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268364"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268364"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}