{"id":27045,"date":"2003-09-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-09-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-molly-abraham-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-3-september-2003"},"modified":"2015-11-05T09:06:35","modified_gmt":"2015-11-05T03:36:35","slug":"mrs-molly-abraham-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-3-september-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-molly-abraham-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-3-september-2003","title":{"rendered":"Mrs. Molly Abraham vs State Represented By The on 3 September, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mrs. Molly Abraham vs State Represented By The on 3 September, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 03\/09\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V. KANAGARAJ\n\nCrl.O.P.No.30135 of 2003\nand\nCrl.M.P.No.8349 of 2003\n\n1.  Mrs. Molly Abraham\n2.  Thomas Abraham\n3.  Prize Abraham                                       ....  Petitioners\n\n-Vs-\n\nState represented by the\nInspector of Police\nCentral Crime Branch Team VI\nOffice of the Commissioner of Police\nEgmore, Chennai-8.                              ....  Respondent\n\n\n        Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Criminal  Procedure\nCode for the grant of relief as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner :  Mr.  M.  Ravindran, S.C.\n                For Mr.  S.B.s.  Raman &amp; Associates\n\nFor Respondent :  Mr.  V.  Jayaprakash Narayanan\n                Govt.  Advocate (Crl.  Side)\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>                Petitioners  are  three  in number, the first petitioner being<br \/>\nthe mother and the second and third petitioners her sons and  they  have  come<br \/>\nforward  to  file  the  above Criminal Original Petition praying to direct the<br \/>\nrespondent not to harass the petitioners under the guise of  investigation  or<br \/>\ninterfere  with  the  peaceful  possession  and  enjoyment of the petitioners&#8217;<br \/>\nproperty  bearing  No.9A,  III  Street,   Dr.Subbaroya   Nagar,   Kodambakkam,<br \/>\nChennai-600 024 having a total extent of 24 grounds 1390 sq.ft.  except by due<br \/>\nprocess of an order from a competent Civil court.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nhusband  one  Mr.A.G.Abraham  has  purchased  the said property from one Selva<br \/>\nSaroja on payment of the entire agreed sale consideration with her for herself<br \/>\nand as Managing Director of M\/s.T.P.Sokkalal Ram Sait Factory P.   Ltd.    and<br \/>\nrequired  to execute a sale deed conveying the said property to him, but, in a<br \/>\npiquant situation met with by the said A.G.  Abraham, he was not able  to  get<br \/>\nthe  registration  done in his name; that the entire extent of 24 grounds 1390<br \/>\nsq.ft.  is enclosed with the compound wall put up by the said  A.G.    Abraham<br \/>\nright  from  the  year 198 5 further constructing their residential house in a<br \/>\nportion of the said property and making use  of  the  remaining  property  for<br \/>\ntheir  business run under the name and style of York Demolitions and the first<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s husband A.G.Abraham was in physical possession and  enjoyment  of<br \/>\nthe said properties till his death.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.   Giving  the  entire description of the said property, the<br \/>\npetitioners would further submit that on the death of the  said  Smt.    Selva<br \/>\nSaroja on  30.11.1994  and on the death of Mr.A.G.  Abraham on 01.12.1997, the<br \/>\nlegal heirs of the deceased Selva Saroja had  taken  over  the  management  of<br \/>\nT.P.Sokkalal Ram Sait   Factory  P.    Ltd.    and  taking  advantage  of  the<br \/>\nnon-execution of the sale deed in  spite  of  the  entire  sale  consideration<br \/>\nhaving  been  received  by the deceased Selva Saroja still they negotiate with<br \/>\nthe petitioners for additional payment  or  to  surrender  a  portion  of  the<br \/>\nproperty  even  though they are quite aware of the interest of the petitioners<br \/>\nin the suit property.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  The petitioners would further submit that two  suits  have<br \/>\nbeen  filed by the legal heirs of the said Selva Saroja, one collusive suit in<br \/>\nO.S.No.4010 of 1999 on the file of the VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court,<br \/>\nChennai instituted against Mr.  Jacob  George,  who  is  the  brother  of  the<br \/>\ndeceased Mr.A.G.    Abraham,  even  though  the  said  person  has no personal<br \/>\ninterest in the suit property; that immediately on coming to know of the  said<br \/>\nsuit,  the  petitioners  have also in their capacity as the legal heirs of Mr.<br \/>\nA.G.  Abraham and being in possession and enjoyment of  the  property  besides<br \/>\nbeing  the owners of the property, have filed applications in I.A.Nos.14765 of<br \/>\n2002, 14763 of 2002 and  14764  of  2002  respectively  for  impleadment,  for<br \/>\npreservation of status quo and for appointment of a guardian and the said suit<br \/>\nis being well contested by the petitioners also.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.   While such being the state of affairs, a mutual agreement<br \/>\nwas also entered  into  between  the  petitioners  and  one  T.P.S.H.Prasanna,<br \/>\ndaughter of T.P.S.H.Selva Saroja, thereby agreeing to part with the portion of<br \/>\nthe property admeasuring 6 grounds and 710 sq.ft.  to be conveyed in favour of<br \/>\nthe  petitioners  on  a regular deed of sale and on such execution of the sale<br \/>\ndeed, the petitioners to surrender the remaining extent of the property to the<br \/>\nlegal heirs of late Selva Saroja; that in the meantime, yet  another  suit  in<br \/>\nO.S.No.1061  of  2003 on the file of the XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,<br \/>\nChennai has been  instituted  by  Mr.Jacob  George  praying  for  a  permanent<br \/>\ninjunction restraining the petitioners from parting with the possession of the<br \/>\nproperty   and  the  legal  heirs  of  Tmt.T.P.S.H.Selva  Saroja  from  taking<br \/>\npossession of the property and an interim order directing the petitioners  not<br \/>\nto  part  with  possession  has also been granted as on 27.12.2002 by the said<br \/>\nCourt; that since the compromise required the other party to consider the same<br \/>\nin the Board and to pass resolutions and for causing production  of  the  said<br \/>\nresolution,  pursuant  to  the  sale of the agreed portion of the petitioners,<br \/>\nthree weeks time was allowed by mutual understanding and the  said  resolution<br \/>\nis yet to  be  produced;  that  in  the  meantime,  Smt.   T.P.S.H.  Prasanna,<br \/>\ndaughter of late Smt.Selva Saroja has renewed  her  effort  to  implicate  the<br \/>\npetitioners  in  some  false  criminal complaint by the use of police force to<br \/>\nsecure possession of the entire property with intent to avoid  the  Memorandum<br \/>\nof  Compromise  entered  into  between  the  genuine  parties on 24.2.2003 has<br \/>\nresorted to the  respondent  with  a  false  complaint,  based  on  which  the<br \/>\nrespondent  has  caused the notice in question issued under Section 160 and 91<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure Code calling for  the  petitioners  to  appear  before  the<br \/>\nrespondent  relating  to  the said complaint said to be under investigation of<br \/>\nthe respondent and to examine the petitioners regarding the same has  directed<br \/>\nto appear  before  him  on  24.08.2003  at  10.00  a.m.    resenting which the<br \/>\npetitioners have come forward to file the  above  Criminal  Original  Petition<br \/>\nseeking a direction of this Court in the manner extracted supra.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  Today, when the above Criminal Original Petition was taken<br \/>\nup  for  consideration in the presence of the learned senior counsel appearing<br \/>\non behalf of the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate  representing<br \/>\nthe  respondent  contra,  what gathered from all the sources particularly from<br \/>\nthe materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel  for  both<br \/>\nis  that  by  lodging the complaint, the complainant before the respondent has<br \/>\nattempted to give a  criminal  colour  for  a  case  purely  civil  in  nature<br \/>\nparticularly  in  view  of the fact that two suits and many applications filed<br \/>\ntherein are pending before the Civil Court.  Needless to mention that it is  a<br \/>\nproperty dispute by rival claimants since the original parties, who transacted<br \/>\nthe  entire  sale  business  have  passed away, the legal heirs without proper<br \/>\nguidance have entered into the civil dispute and in all respects, the solution<br \/>\nlies only before  the  Civil  Court  as  parties  have  rightly  resorted  to.<br \/>\nWhileso,  under  the  pretext  of  a  complaint  lodged  by  the said T.P.S.H.<br \/>\nPrasanna, the respondent has issued notice and therefore, being alarmed by the<br \/>\nsame and seeking protection against  frivolous  criminal  proceedings,  it  is<br \/>\nundesirable  in  the  context  of the facts and circumstances of the case, the<\/p>\n<p>petitioners have resorted to file the above  Criminal  Original  Petition  for<br \/>\nfear  that  the respondent should not, under pretext of the said complaint, ma<br \/>\nke inroads nor cause hindrance initiating a criminal proceeding against them.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  Of course, the very notice caused by the respondent on the<br \/>\npetitioners, itself is specific to the effect that only in a case investigated<br \/>\nby the police such a notice under Section 160 and 91 Criminal  Procedure  Code<br \/>\ncould  be  issued  and in fact in a case registered and investigated into, the<br \/>\npolice are at liberty to summon any person under these provisions, but not  on<br \/>\na mere  complaint  received.   It is too much on the part of the respondent to<br \/>\nhave travelled to issue a notice of that kind, which in  the  circumstance  of<br \/>\nthe  case  could  only  be  construed  as  a  threatening measure, as though a<br \/>\ncognizable offence has been committed on the part of the petitioners  and  the<br \/>\nsame is  not  only  undesirable  but  unwarranted  as  well.  Unless a case is<br \/>\nregistered, the police cannot gain the authority to investigate into a subject<br \/>\nand unless the matter is under the respondent&#8217;s investigation, no such  notice<br \/>\nunder  Section  160  or  91 of the Criminal Procedure Code could be issued and<br \/>\ntherefore, it is enough if it is ascertained  that  such  a  notice  could  be<br \/>\nissued  only  in a definite case registered and taken up for investigation and<br \/>\nnot otherwise.  Since it is the basic dictum of law that the law itself is set<br \/>\non motion only by registering the first information report and in  any  manner<br \/>\nany  act  done  without  registering a case is only bereft of the authority of<br \/>\nlaw.  It is too much on the part of the respondent to have caused  the  notice<br \/>\nand  therefore not only the prayer of the petitioners is liable to be answered<br \/>\nin the affirmative, but also the notice sent to the  petitioners  calling  for<br \/>\nthem  to  appear  before  the  respondent on 24.8.2003, besides having already<br \/>\nbecome infructuous,  also  becomes  liable  to  be  dismissed  and  hence  the<br \/>\nfollowing order.\n<\/p>\n<p>                In result,\n<\/p>\n<p>                i)  for  all  the  above  discussions held, the above Criminal<br \/>\noriginal  Petition  succeeds  directing  the  respondent  not  to  harass  the<br \/>\npetitioners  under  the  guise  of investigation and not to cause interference<br \/>\nwith the petitioners&#8217;  peaceful  possession  and  enjoyment  of  the  property<br \/>\nbearing No.9A III Street, Dr.  Subbaroya Nagar, Kodambakkam, Chennai  600 024<br \/>\nin the  entire  extent of 24 grounds and 1390 sq.ft.  except by due process of<br \/>\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n<p>                ii) The notice issued under Sections 160 and  91  of  Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure  Code  dated 23.08.2003 calling for the petitioners to appear before<br \/>\nthe respondent on 24.08.2003 besides becoming  infructuous,  also  is  quashed<br \/>\nspecifically since being irregular and not in adherence with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>                iii) Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.8349 of 2003 is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:Yes<br \/>\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n<p>sl<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  Inspector of Police<br \/>\nCentral Crime Branch Team VI<br \/>\nOffice of the Commissioner of Police<br \/>\nEgmore, Chennai  8.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\nHigh Court, Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Mrs. Molly Abraham vs State Represented By The on 3 September, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03\/09\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V. KANAGARAJ Crl.O.P.No.30135 of 2003 and Crl.M.P.No.8349 of 2003 1. Mrs. Molly Abraham 2. Thomas Abraham 3. Prize Abraham &#8230;. Petitioners -Vs- State represented by [&hellip;]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27045","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mrs. Molly Abraham vs State Represented By The on 3 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/mrs-molly-abraham-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-3-september-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mrs. Molly Abraham vs State Represented By The on 3 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-molly-abraham-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-3-september-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-05T03:36:35+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-molly-abraham-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-3-september-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-molly-abraham-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-3-september-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mrs. Molly Abraham vs State Represented By The on 3 September, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-05T03:36:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-molly-abraham-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-3-september-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1610,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-molly-abraham-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-3-september-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-molly-abraham-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-3-september-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-molly-abraham-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-3-september-2003\",\"name\":\"Mrs. Molly Abraham vs State Represented By The on 3 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-05T03:36:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-molly-abraham-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-3-september-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-molly-abraham-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-3-september-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-molly-abraham-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-3-september-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mrs. Molly Abraham vs State Represented By The on 3 September, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Mrs. Molly Abraham vs State Represented By The on 3 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/mrs-molly-abraham-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-3-september-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mrs. Molly Abraham vs State Represented By The on 3 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-molly-abraham-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-3-september-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-05T03:36:35+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-molly-abraham-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-3-september-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-molly-abraham-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-3-september-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mrs. Molly Abraham vs State Represented By The on 3 September, 2003","datePublished":"2003-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-05T03:36:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-molly-abraham-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-3-september-2003"},"wordCount":1610,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-molly-abraham-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-3-september-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-molly-abraham-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-3-september-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-molly-abraham-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-3-september-2003","name":"Mrs. Molly Abraham vs State Represented By The on 3 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-05T03:36:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-molly-abraham-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-3-september-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-molly-abraham-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-3-september-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-molly-abraham-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-3-september-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mrs. Molly Abraham vs State Represented By The on 3 September, 2003"}]},{"@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\/27045","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=27045"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27045\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27045"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27045"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27045"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}