{"id":269289,"date":"2009-04-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulabrao-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-april-2009"},"modified":"2018-09-15T01:29:26","modified_gmt":"2018-09-14T19:59:26","slug":"gulabrao-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulabrao-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Gulabrao vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
Gulabrao vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 April, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n             HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR      \n\n\n\n\n\n\n             Misc. Criminal Case No.877 of 2002\n\n\n\n\n\n                   1.  Gulabrao\n\n                    2.  Mukesh\n\n                    3.  Ramesh\n                             ...Petitioners\n\n\n\n                           Versus\n\n\n\n\n                   State of Chhattisgarh\n                                        ...Respondents<\/pre>\n
     {Petition under Section 482<\/a> of the Code of Criminal
\n                      Procedure, 1973}<\/p>\n
!     Mr.  P.K.C.  Tiwary,  Senior Advocate  with  Mr.  Shashi Bhushan, Advocate for the applicants<\/p>\n
^     Mr.   Akhil  Mishra,  Deputy  Govt.  Advocate  with  Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for the State<\/p>\n
Honble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J <\/p>\n
       Dated:24\/04\/2009<\/p>\n
:       Judgment
\n                         ORAL ORDER
\n                         (24-4-2009)<\/p>\n
1.    This  is a petition for quashment of the order  framing
\n  charge dated 6-9-2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First
\n  Class,  Durg,  in Criminal Case No.559\/99  which  has  been
\n  affirmed  by  the 1st Additional Sessions  Judge,  Durg  in
\n  Criminal Revision No.410\/2001 vide order dated 19-1-2002.\n<\/p>\n
2.    Quashment of the order framing charge is prayed on  the
\n  ground that without any whisper of evidence against Mukesh &
\n  Ramesh  the  Court below has framed charge and without  any
\n  prima facie material against the applicants relating to dowry
\n  or its demand the Court below has framed charge against them
\n  for  offence punishable under Sections 3<\/a> & 4<\/a> of  the  Dowry
\n  Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short `the Act’).\n<\/p>\n
3.    I  have  heard learned counsel for the parties, perused
\n  the order impugned and records of the Courts below.\n<\/p>\n
4.    Learned  Senior  Advocate appearing on  behalf  of  the
\n  applicants submits that applicant No.2 Mukesh is bridegroom,
\n  applicant  No.1 Gulabrao is father of Mukesh and  applicant
\n  No.3  Ramesh  is brother-in-law of Mukesh.  Applicant  No.1
\n  Gulabrao  agreed  to  marry his son with  Mukesh  with  the
\n  daughter  of Rambhau namely, Meenakshi.  According  to  the
\n  F.I.R.  it  was  decided  that the bride  party  will  give
\n  Rs.75,000\/- to the bridegroom party as the cost of marriage
\n  on 1-11-1998. The applicants namely Gulabrao, Mukesh & Ramesh
\n  along with Chandrakala and two other relatives went to  the
\n  house of Rambhau where they took their meals and thereafter,
\n  Rambhau  gave  Rs.75,000\/-  to them.   Again  on  3-11-1998
\n  applicant  No.1 Gulabrao and another person i.e. mother  of
\n  Mukesh   namely  Chandrakalavati  demanded  Rs.1  lakh   by
\n  telephone.   Ultimately  the marriage  was  not  solemnized
\n  between the parties and Rambhau lodged the first information
\n  report  on 19-1-1999 after lapse of 2 + months against  the
\n  present applicants and others for offence punishable  under
\n  Sections 3<\/a> & 4<\/a> of the Act.  Learned Senior Advocate further
\n  submits that according to the definition of dowry under the
\n  Dowry Prohibition Act<\/a>, 1961, cost of marriage is not dowry,
\n  therefore,  even  if  cost  of marriage  was  paid  to  the
\n  applicants it would not come within the purview  of  dowry.
\n  Even  the  allegation  of demand of Rs.1  lakh  is  against
\n  applicant No.1 Gulabrao, however, no telephone details have
\n  been collected by the prosecution to substantiate the charge.
\n  At the time of framing charge in terms of Sections 227<\/a> & 228<\/a>
\n  of  the  Cr.P.C. the prosecution is required to show  prima
\n  facie material for framing of charge although at the time of
\n  framing charge no meticulous scrutiny is required.  But  in
\n  this case the prosecution has utterly failed to collect the
\n  material to show prima facie ground for framing of  charge.
\n  Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance in the matter of State
\n  of M.P. v. S.B. Johari<\/a> and others1 in which it has been held
\n  by  the  Apex Court that at the time of framing charge  the
\n  Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on
\n  record  with  a  view to finding out if the facts  emerging
\n  therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of
\n  all  the  ingredients  constituting  the  alleged  offence.
\n  Learned Senior Counsel further placed reliance in the matter
\n  of Sunil Bajaj v. State of M.P<\/a>.2 in which it has been held by
\n  the  Apex Court that the prosecution is required to  adduce
\n  cogent & reliable evidence and in the case of conversation on
\n  telephone,  it is required to collect evidence relating  to
\n  conversation  by  telephone.  Learned Senior  Counsel  also
\n  placed  reliance in the matter State of Madhya  Pradesh  v.
\n  Ashwinkumar Vishnudutta Jha<\/a> and others3 in which it has been
\n  held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that “Framing of charge\n<\/p>\n
  –   Court  is  bound  to  consider  documents  referred  by
\n  prosecution under section 173<\/a> of the Cr.P.C. – Material, if
\n  un-rebutted,  not  sufficient to carry conviction  –  Court
\n  justified in discharging accused.”\n<\/p>\n
5.   On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed
\n  the petition and submitted that the prosecution has collected
\n  sufficient  material  against the  present  applicants  for
\n  framing of charge for offence punishable under Sections 3<\/a> & 4<\/a>
\n  of the Act.  Learned State Counsel further submits that even
\n  according to the F.I.R. both the parties agreed that  bride
\n  party  will pay Rs.75,000\/- to bridegroom party as cost  of
\n  marriage and the said cost was paid to the applicants on 1-11-
\n  1998 in the house of bride party before the witnesses and at
\n  that time, the applicants namely Gulabrao, Mukesh, Ramesh &
\n  others were present before whom the money was paid.  Learned
\nState  Counsel also submits that even according to the F.I.R.
\n  Gulabrao & his wife have demanded Rs.1 lakh by telephone.  At
\n  the stage of framing charge detail scrutiny is not required
\n  and  the  prosecution is required to adduce evidence  which
\n  substantiates the charge so framed.  Learned counsel for the
\n  State further submits that any money or valuable thing agreed
\n  for marriage or at the time of marriage would come under the
\n  definition of dowry, under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
6.    The  word  `dowry’ is defined in Section 2<\/a> of  the  Act
\n  which reads as follows: –\n<\/p>\n
          “In  this Act, “dowry” means any property  or
\n          valuable security given or agreed to be given
\n          either directly or indirectly-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (a)  by one party to a marriage to the other party to the
\n            marriage; or\n<\/p>\n
(b)  by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any
\nother person, to either party to the marriage or to any other
\nperson,
\n          at  or  before or any time after the marriage
\n          in  connection with the marriage of the  said
\n          parties, but does not include dower  or  mahr
\n          in  the  case of persons to whom  the  Muslim
\n          Personal Law (Shariat) applies.\n<\/p>\n
          Explanation   II.-The  expression   “valuable
\n          security” has the same meaning as in  section
\n          30<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”\n<\/p>\n
7.    According to the definition of `dowry’ any property  or
\n  valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly
\n  or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party
\n  to  the marriage will come under the ambit of dowry.   Rs.1
\n  lakh  demanded by the applicants will definitely come under
\n  the  ambit  of  the definition of dowry.   As  regards  the
\n  question that Rs.75,000\/-, which was agreed to be  paid  on
\n  behalf of bride party to bridegroom party as the entire cost
\n  of  marriage, is dowry or not, the F.I.R. shows that it was
\n  agreed to be paid as cost of marriage and it was required to
\n  be paid on behalf of bride party to bridegroom party.  This
\n  shows that this is a consideration for marriage and it will
\n  come  under the definition of dowry under Section 2<\/a> of  the
\n  Act.  At the stage of framing charge no meticulous scrutiny
\n  of evidence is required and the Court is required to evaluate
\n  the material and documents on record with a view to finding
\n  out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value
\n  disclose  the existence of all the ingredients constituting
\n  the  alleged offence or not.  As has been held by the  Apex
\n  Court in S.B. Johari’s case,
\n          “It  is  settled  law that at  the  stage  of
\n          framing  the charge, the court has  to  prima
\n          facie  consider whether there  is  sufficient
\n          ground  for  proceeding against the  accused.
\n          The  court is not required to appreciate  the
\n          evidence  and  arrive at the conclusion  that
\n          the  materials produced are sufficient or not
\n          for convicting the accused.  If the court  is
\n          satisfied that a prima facie case is made out
\n          for  proceeding further then a charge has  to
\n          be  framed.  The charge can be quashed if the
\n          evidence  which  the prosecutor  proposes  to
\n          adduce  to  prove the guilt of  the  accused,
\n          even   if   fully  accepted  before   it   is
\n          challenged  by cross-examination or  rebutted
\n          by defence evidence, if any, cannot show that
\n          the accused committed the particular offence.
\n          In  such  case, there would be no  sufficient
\n          ground  for  proceeding with the  trial.   In
\n          Niranjan   Singh  Karam  Singh   Punjabi   v.\n<\/p>\n
          Jitendra  Bhimraj Bijjayya4 after considering
\n          the   provisions  of  Sections  227<\/a>  and  228<\/a>
\n          Cr.P.C.,  the court posed a question, whether
\n          at the stage of framing the charge, the trial
\n          court  should  marshal the materials  on  the
\n          record  of  the case as he would  do  on  the
\n          conclusion of the trial.  The Court held that
\n          at  the  stage of framing the charge  inquiry
\n          must  necessarily be limited to  deciding  if
\n          the   facts   emerging  from  such  materials
\n          constitute the offence with which the accused
\n          could  be charged.  The court may peruse  the
\n          records for that limited purpose, but  it  is
\n          not  required to marshal it with  a  view  to
\n          decide  the reliability thereof.   The  Court
\n          referred  to  earlier decisions in  State  of
\n          Bihar  v.  Ramesh Singh5<\/a>, Union of  India  v.\n<\/p>\n
          Prafulla   Kumar   Samal6   and   Supdt.    &
\n          Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B.  v.  Anil
\n          Kumar Bhunja7<\/a> and held thus: (SCC p. 85, para\n<\/p>\n
          7)
\n                    “From the above discussion it seems
\n               well  settled that at the Sections  227-<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
               228  stage  the  court  is  required  to
\n               evaluate  the material and documents  on
\n               record with a view to finding out if the
\n               facts  emerging therefrom taken at their
\n               face value disclose the existence of all
\n               the ingredients constituting the alleged
\n               offence.  The Court may for this limited
\n               purpose  sift the evidence as it  cannot
\n               be expected even at the initial stage to
\n               accept  all that the prosecution  states
\n               as gospel truth even if it is opposed to
\n               common  sense or the broad probabilities
\n               of the case.””\n<\/p>\n
                                          (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
8.    At the stage of framing charge the Court is required to
\n  see the telephone call and by which mode the demand is made.
\n  It  is  specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. that applicant
\n  No.1 has demanded Rs.1 lakh by telephone.  First information
\n  report clearly shows that the present applicants visited the
\n  house of Rambhau and after taking their meals Rs.75,000\/- was
\n  given  by Rambhau to the bridegroom party where the present
\n  applicants & other persons were present.  At this stage  it
\n  cannot be said that the present applicants at that time were
\n  not  members of bridegroom party.  This is not the case  in
\n  which  applicants  Ramesh or Mukesh have objected  or  have
\n  resisted  that the bridegroom party will not receive  money
\n  especially Rs.75,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
9.    On  careful examination of the charge sheet it  reveals
\nthat all the applicants were party to the proceeding in which
\n  Rs.75,000\/- was agreed to be paid and was paid, and applicant
\n  No.1 Gulabrao also demanded Rs.1 lakh in connection with the
\n  said  marriage.  On the basis of the material collected  on
\n  behalf of the prosecution the Court below has framed charge
\n  against the applicants for offence punishable under Sections
\n  3<\/a> & 4<\/a> of the Act.  The Court below has neither committed any
\n  illegality or any irregularly in framing charge against the
\n  present applicants.  I do not find any scope for interference
\n  in exercise of inherent jurisdiction in terms of Section 482<\/a>
\n  of  the Cr.P.C.  Consequently, the petition is liable to be
\n  dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
10.   Interim order dated 29-10-2002 stands vacated.  As  the
\n  case is pending since 1999, the Court below is directed  to
\n  expedite the trial and decide the case as early possible.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court Gulabrao vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 April, 2009 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Criminal Case No.877 of 2002 1. Gulabrao 2. Mukesh 3. Ramesh …Petitioners Versus State of Chhattisgarh …Respondents {Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} ! Mr. P.K.C. Tiwary, Senior Advocate with 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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-269289","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGulabrao vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 April, 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\/gulabrao-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gulabrao vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulabrao-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-april-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=\"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-14T19:59:26+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\\\/gulabrao-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulabrao-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gulabrao vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-14T19:59:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulabrao-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1912,\"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\\\/gulabrao-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulabrao-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulabrao-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Gulabrao vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-14T19:59:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulabrao-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulabrao-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulabrao-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gulabrao vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 April, 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":"Gulabrao vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 April, 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\/gulabrao-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gulabrao vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulabrao-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-14T19:59:26+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\/gulabrao-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulabrao-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gulabrao vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-14T19:59:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulabrao-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-april-2009"},"wordCount":1912,"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\/gulabrao-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulabrao-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulabrao-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-april-2009","name":"Gulabrao vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-14T19:59:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulabrao-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulabrao-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulabrao-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gulabrao vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 April, 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\/269289","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=269289"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269289\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=269289"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=269289"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=269289"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}