{"id":271117,"date":"1999-03-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-03-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swati-acharya-and-anr-vs-aruna-suresh-anr-on-19-march-1999"},"modified":"2018-01-26T12:16:06","modified_gmt":"2018-01-26T06:46:06","slug":"swati-acharya-and-anr-vs-aruna-suresh-anr-on-19-march-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swati-acharya-and-anr-vs-aruna-suresh-anr-on-19-march-1999","title":{"rendered":"Swati Acharya And Anr. vs Aruna Suresh & Anr. on 19 March, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Swati Acharya And Anr. vs Aruna Suresh & Anr. on 19 March, 1999<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1999 IIAD Delhi 724, 1999 CriLJ 2067, 79 (1999) DLT 110, 1999 (49) DRJ 173, 1999 RLR 232<\/div>\n
Author: A D Singh<\/div>\n
Bench: A D Singh, S Kapoor<\/div>\n

ORDER<\/p>\n

Anil Dev Singh, J.\n<\/p>\n

1. This is a petition under Article 215<\/a> of the Constitution of India
\nwhereby the petitioners pray that proceedings for Contempt of Court be initiated against the first respondent, who is the Additional Sessions Judge, and the second respondent, who is one of the persons against whom the first petitioner lodged a First Information Report, being No.733\/95, regarding commission of offences under Sections 114<\/a>, 120B<\/a>, 506<\/a>, 376<\/a>\/511<\/a>
\nIPC with Police Station, Janakpuri, New Delhi. The facts relevant for the disposal of the petition are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n

2. The first petitioner is the daughter of Mr. Ajay Acharya and Mrs. Neerja Acharya. According to the aforesaid FIR, the father of the first petitioner Mr.Ajay Acharya died as a result of an illness in the year 1991.\n<\/p>\n

During his illness his friend, Mr. Jaswinder Pal Sethi, the second respondent, started visiting him at his residence C-4-D\/39-B, Janakpuri, New Delhi. It is alleged that the mother of the first petitioner, Smt. Neerja Acharya, developed illicit relations with the second respondent, They started living as husband and wife even during the life time of Mr.Ajay Acharya. Despite the fact that Mr. Ajay Acharya was suffering from lever
\nproblem, the second respondent forced him to drink liquor with a view to get rid of him. After the death of Mr. Ajay Acharya, the second respondent shifted to C-4-D\/39B, Janakpuri, New Delhi and has been residing since then
\nwith Smt. Neerja Acharya. As per the further allegation contained in the FIR, the second respondent was having evil eye on the first petitioner and was making obscene gestures to her. On October 7, 1995 when the first petitioner went to the bathroom to take her bath the second respondent forcibly entered the same. Upon this, the first petitioner raised an alarm. Smt. Neerja Acharya came at the door step of the bathroom and threatened the first petitioner to follow the directions of the second respondent. Smt. Neerja Acharya also caught hold of the hands of the first petitioner and the second respondent tried to perform “dirty act” with the first petitioner. At that time the paternal grandmother of the first petitioner, Smt. Shyamla Acharya came to her rescue and extricated her from the second respondent and her mother. The police registered the FIR and investigated the same. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the second
\nrespondent and Smt. Neerja Acharya in the Court of the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n

3. Two actions have been attributed to the first respondent which according to the petitioners amount to Contempt of Court: (i) The first respondent on April 7, 1997 issued bailable warrants against the petitioners in the sum of Rs. 3000\/- along with notices under Section 350<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Code for their non-appearance in the Court with a view to secure their presence even before framing of charges against the accused in gross violation of the procedure laid down in the Code<\/a> of Criminal Procedure; and\n<\/p>\n

(ii) On July 15, 1997 when the petitioners appeared before the first respondent, she started scolding & threatening them and asked them to withdraw the complaint, and told them that if they do so, they will receive a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs from the second respondent. When the petitioners refused to accept the offer made by the first respondent, they were harassed, humiliated and ill treated by her. The petitioners having become nervous due to aggressive behaviour of the first respondent, requested for an adjournment to consider the offer. On the next date when the petitioners appeared before the first respondent, she offered a draft of Rs.1 lakh to the petitioners with the promise that the balance sum of Rs. 6 lakhs shall be paid to them at a later date. On the refusal of the petitioners to
\naccept the offer, they were again threatened and humiliated by the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. It appears to us that in consonance with the decision of this Court in Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. K. Suba Rao and another ILR (1974) 1 Delhi 2, the office, in first instance, ought not to have listed the matter before us on the judicial side. The petition should have been placed before the Chief Justice in Chamber for orders and it was for the Chief Justice to decide either by himself or in consultation with other Judges of the Court whether to take cognizance of the information contained in the petition. It is significant to note that this petition has neither been filed by the Standing Counsel for the State nor the petitioners have taken consent in writing of the Standing Counsel for filing the same under Section 15<\/a> of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. According to the said provision, the Supreme Court and a High Court can take action either on its own motion or the motion made by the Advocate General or any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General. However, in relation to the High Court of Delhi, it is the Standing Counsel for the State who has been authorised for this purpose. In Anil Kumar (supra) it has been pointed out that whether it is a petition under the Contempt of Courts Act<\/a> or Article 215<\/a> of the Constitution where the informant is not one of the persons named in Section 15<\/a>
\nof the Contempt of Courts Act, the same should be placed before the Chief Justice for orders in Chamber and the Chief Justice may decide himself or in consultation with the other Judges of the Court whether to take any cognizance of the information. At this stage, it will be convenient to set out the observations of this Court:-\n<\/p>\n

“The office is to take note that in future if any information is lodged even in the form of a petition inviting this Court to take action under the Contempt of Courts Act<\/a> or Article 215<\/a> of the Constitution, where the informant is not one of the persons named in section 15<\/a> of the said Act, it should not be styled as a petition and should not be placed for admission on the judicial side. Such a petition should be placed before the Chief Justice for orders in Chambers and the Chief Justice may decide either by himself or in consultation with the other Judges of the Court whether to take any cognizance of the information. The office is directed to strike off the information as “Criminal Original No.51 of 1973″ and to file it.”\n<\/p>\n

5. That apart in our view the first respondent has not committed any Contempt of Court. The allegation of the petitioners that the first respondent had issued bailable warrants along with notice under Section 350<\/a>
\nof the Code of Criminal Procedure even before framing of charge against the accused persons, is incorrect. Significantly charges were framed against the second respondent and Smt. Neerja Acharya on January 9, 1997. It was on a subsequent date viz. April 7, 1997 that bailable warrants were issued for securing the presence of the petitioners. On April 7, 1997 APP was present for the State and Shri Anupam Sharma was present for the accused persons. Besides, accused were also present on bail. However, petitioners and Head Constable Shish Pal were absent despite service. Therefore, bailable warrants along with notices under section 350<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure were issued for securing the presence of the petitioners and Head Constable Shish Pal. On that date only one witness, PW-1 could be examined. Thus the contention of the petitioners that the bailable warrants were issued along with notices under Section 350<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure to secure their presence before the framing of charge, is misconceived. The allegation has been made recklessly without consulting the record. We also fail to comprehend as to how one could move under the provisions of Contempt of
\nCourts Act<\/a>, 1971 or the Article 215<\/a> of the Constitution of India in such a situation or even in a situation depicted by the petitioners in regard to issuance of bailable warrants against the petitioners for their appearance.\n<\/p>\n

6. The other allegation of the petitioners that on July 15, 1997, the petitioners were asked to withdraw the complaint since the second respondent was willing to pay a sum of Rupees seven lakhs to them and they were
\nharassed, humiliated and ill treated by the first respondent on their refusal to accept the offer, is also misconceived. In order to understand the facts in their correct perspective it will be necessary to refer to the
\norder of the first respondent dated July 15, 1997. This reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n

 \"15.7.97                15.7.97\nMiss Swati     served         Present:  None for the State.\nCt. Desh Raj   -do-                     Accused are present on bail.\nSI Ram Kishan  -do-           PW Swati Acharya and Shyam Lata\nSI Pyare Lal   -do-           Acharya are present along with I.O.\n               (request)      In the absence of public prosecutor\nMHCM           -do-           statement of the witnesses cannot be\nSmt. Shyam     -do-           recorded. File be put up on 21.7.97. \nLata                          for further proceeding. defense \n                              Cl. Anupam Sharma be present \n                              on the date fixed.\"\n\n \n\n<\/pre>\n
7.   The order shows that both counsel for the State as well as the defense were not present and the matter was adjourned due to their  non-appearance. In  the  rejoinder, it is admitted that on July 15, 1997 the case  was  adjourned  due  to the non-availability of the Public Prosecutor and  due  to this, their statements were not recorded. Significantly, in the  rejoinder, the  petitioners neither talk of any offer made by the first respondent  to them  on  July 15, 1997 nor do they talk of any harassment  or  humiliation caused  by her to them on that date. According to para 7 of the  rejoinder,
\nthe  problem  started on July 21, 1997, the date fixed  for  recording  the statements  of  the petitioners. The para so far as it is relevant  to  the point in issue reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     “it  is  further  submitted that again on  2.5.1997  summons  and      warrants  were  issued against the petitioners and the  case  was      fixed  for  15.7.1997 on which date the petitioners  appeared  in      Court. However, due to ‘non-availability’ of the Public  Prosecutor, statement of the petitioners could not be recorded. The real      problem  started on 21.7.1997, the date fixed for  recording  the      statement of the petitioners. The petitioners were present in the      Court  so  was the Public Prosecutor but still as per  the  order      sheet dt. 21.7.1997 the Contemner No.1 who was earlier in a great      hurry to record the statement of the petitioners for the  obvious      reasons,  did  not record any statement on the said date.  It  is      submitted that it was on 21.7.1997 the Contemner No.1 offered  an      amount of Rs.1,00,000\/- to the petitioners and the said ‘balance’ would be paid later.”\n<\/p>\n
8.   Thus it is clear that according to the stand of the petitioners in the rejoinder,  the  trouble started on July 21, 1997. From  the  rejoinder  it appears  that the petitioners do not seem to be aggrieved of any action  of the  first respondent taken on July 15, 1997 as they themselves are  saying that their statements could not be recorded due to the non-availability  of the Public Prosecutor and it is not stated that an offer was given to  them on  July 15, 1997 and the petitioners had taken time to consider  the  same because of the harassment, humiliation and ill treatment meted out to  them
\nby  the  first respondent. There is a clear difference  between  the  stand taken  by the petitioners in the petition and the rejoinder. The  shift  is quite  discernible & significant. It demolishes the allegation against  the first respondent pertaining to the happenings of July 15, 1998. Insofar  as the alleged events of July 21, 1997 are concerned, if the position is  what has been depicted in para 7 of the rejoinder, a question arises as to  what
\nprevented  the petitioners from incorporating them in the petition  itself. The allegations seem to be an after thought. The contention of the  learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were pressurised by the  first respondent to accept the offer in such a heinous crime does  not commend  to us. The plea of the petitioners that the fact that the  FDR  of Rs.1  lakh  was placed on record on 21st July, 1997 shows  that  the  first respondent had connived with the second respondent to pressurise the  petitioners to accept the offer even though the offences were non-compoundable. In our view the plea is only to be stated to be rejected. Order dated  July 21, 1997 passed by the first respondent reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     “21.7.97<\/p>\n
     Present: APP for the State.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Accused are present on bail.       Prosecut-\n     FDR of Rs. one lac                 rix is present. \n     is on record.                      For further proceed\n                                        ing to come up on \n                                        28.7.97.\"\n \n \n\n<\/pre>\n
9.   The  order nowhere records any direction of the first  respondent  for placing the FDR on record of the judicial file. The noting appearing on the left  hand side of the order is obviously an office noting. The  first  respondent in the counter affidavit has stated that the FDR was filed by  the mother  of  the  first petitioner with the Reader of the  Court  after  the hearing  of  the  case on July 21, 1997. In the circumstances,  we  see  no
\nreason to disbelieve the statement.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
10.  This is not a case where contempt jurisdiction of this Court ought  to have  been  invoked by the petitioner against the first respondent.  It  is correct that justice is not a cloistered virtue and she must be allowed  to suffer the scrutiny of public gaze, but it does not mean that a litigant or a member of public can wrongly assume that he is privileged to say anything he  likes  to say against a Judge. The Judges are to  perform  quite  often disagreeable duties. They can not be maligned for that. Protection must  be extended to them so that they are able to function fearlessly. At the  same
\ntime  we  would  like to emphasise that for the sake  of  maintaining  high quality of judicial standards the staff working in the Courts must be  kept in check so that any act on their part may not give rise to any  misgivings like the present one. In view of the foregoing discussion, the  application is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Swati Acharya And Anr. vs Aruna Suresh & Anr. on 19 March, 1999 Equivalent citations: 1999 IIAD Delhi 724, 1999 CriLJ 2067, 79 (1999) DLT 110, 1999 (49) DRJ 173, 1999 RLR 232 Author: A D Singh Bench: A D Singh, S Kapoor ORDER Anil Dev Singh, J. 1. This is a […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-271117","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSwati Acharya And Anr. vs Aruna Suresh & Anr. on 19 March, 1999 - 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\/swati-acharya-and-anr-vs-aruna-suresh-anr-on-19-march-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Swati Acharya And Anr. vs Aruna Suresh & Anr. on 19 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swati-acharya-and-anr-vs-aruna-suresh-anr-on-19-march-1999\" \/>\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=\"1999-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-26T06:46:06+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swati-acharya-and-anr-vs-aruna-suresh-anr-on-19-march-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swati-acharya-and-anr-vs-aruna-suresh-anr-on-19-march-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Swati Acharya And Anr. vs Aruna Suresh & Anr. on 19 March, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-26T06:46:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swati-acharya-and-anr-vs-aruna-suresh-anr-on-19-march-1999\"},\"wordCount\":2269,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swati-acharya-and-anr-vs-aruna-suresh-anr-on-19-march-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swati-acharya-and-anr-vs-aruna-suresh-anr-on-19-march-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swati-acharya-and-anr-vs-aruna-suresh-anr-on-19-march-1999\",\"name\":\"Swati Acharya And Anr. vs Aruna Suresh & Anr. on 19 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-26T06:46:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swati-acharya-and-anr-vs-aruna-suresh-anr-on-19-march-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swati-acharya-and-anr-vs-aruna-suresh-anr-on-19-march-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swati-acharya-and-anr-vs-aruna-suresh-anr-on-19-march-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Swati Acharya And Anr. vs Aruna Suresh & Anr. on 19 March, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"Swati Acharya And Anr. vs Aruna Suresh & Anr. on 19 March, 1999 - 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\/swati-acharya-and-anr-vs-aruna-suresh-anr-on-19-march-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Swati Acharya And Anr. vs Aruna Suresh & Anr. on 19 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swati-acharya-and-anr-vs-aruna-suresh-anr-on-19-march-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-26T06:46:06+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swati-acharya-and-anr-vs-aruna-suresh-anr-on-19-march-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swati-acharya-and-anr-vs-aruna-suresh-anr-on-19-march-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Swati Acharya And Anr. vs Aruna Suresh & Anr. on 19 March, 1999","datePublished":"1999-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-26T06:46:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swati-acharya-and-anr-vs-aruna-suresh-anr-on-19-march-1999"},"wordCount":2269,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swati-acharya-and-anr-vs-aruna-suresh-anr-on-19-march-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swati-acharya-and-anr-vs-aruna-suresh-anr-on-19-march-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swati-acharya-and-anr-vs-aruna-suresh-anr-on-19-march-1999","name":"Swati Acharya And Anr. vs Aruna Suresh & Anr. on 19 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-26T06:46:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swati-acharya-and-anr-vs-aruna-suresh-anr-on-19-march-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swati-acharya-and-anr-vs-aruna-suresh-anr-on-19-march-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swati-acharya-and-anr-vs-aruna-suresh-anr-on-19-march-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Swati Acharya And Anr. vs Aruna Suresh & Anr. on 19 March, 1999"}]},{"@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\/271117","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=271117"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/271117\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=271117"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=271117"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=271117"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}