{"id":27577,"date":"2011-09-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukesh-vs-the-on-30-september-2011"},"modified":"2015-11-05T03:33:59","modified_gmt":"2015-11-04T22:03:59","slug":"mukesh-vs-the-on-30-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukesh-vs-the-on-30-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mukesh vs The on 30 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mukesh vs The on 30 September, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Ks Jhaveri,<\/div>\n<pre>  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n    \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.MA\/5938\/2006\t 6\/ 6\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nMISC.APPLICATION No. 5938 of 2006\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nMUKESH\nRAMANLAL GOKAL &amp; 1 - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nTHE\nSTATE OF GUJARAT &amp; 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nPM THAKKAR, Sr. Advocate with MR DM THAKKAR\nfor Applicant(s) : 1 -\n2. \nPUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, \nNANAVATI ASSOCIATES\nfor Respondent(s) :\n2, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 30\/09\/2011 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tThis<br \/>\napplication u\/s. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been<br \/>\npreferred seeking the relief to quash the criminal complaint being<br \/>\nC.R. No. I-481\/2004 registered with Shaherkotda Police Station and<br \/>\nconsequential proceedings initiated in pursuance of the filing of<br \/>\nsaid complaint.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe<br \/>\npetitioner no.1 is the Proprietor of M\/s. Hallmark Industries, which<br \/>\nis a proprietary firm, having its Office at Mumbai, whereas,<br \/>\npetitioner no.2 is the son of petitioner no.1 and is involved in the<br \/>\nbusiness in the capacity of Manager of the proprietary firm.<br \/>\nRespondent no.2 is a Public Ltd. Company having its Office at<br \/>\nAhmedabad and engaged in the business of manufacture of fabrics. In<br \/>\nearly 2004, a business agreement was arrived at between the<br \/>\npetitioners and respondent no.2-Company, in pursuance of which the<br \/>\npetitioners placed Purchase Orders with respondent no.2-Company for<br \/>\nthe supply of fabrics.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tIt<br \/>\nis the case of the petitioners that respondent no.2-Company did not<br \/>\nsupply goods on time, on account of which the petitioners had to<br \/>\nincur huge financial loss. Therefore, the petitioners raised debit<br \/>\nand credit notes on respondent no.2-complainant. However, respondent<br \/>\nno.2-Company filed the complaint in question against the petitioners<br \/>\nu\/s.420, 406 and 114 of Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the<br \/>\nsame, the petitioners have preferred the present petition u\/s.482 of<br \/>\nthe Code for quashing of the impugned complaint.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>PM Thakkar learned senior counsel appearing with Mr. DM Thakkar for<br \/>\nthe petitioners submitted that no ingredients of the offence alleged<br \/>\nare made out against the petitioners, even if the allegations are<br \/>\ntaken at its face value. He submitted that the dispute between the<br \/>\nparties is purely of a civil nature. He took me through the<br \/>\nMemorandum of Understanding dated 29.12.2004 entered into between the<br \/>\npetitioners and respondent no.2-Company pursuant to the arrest of the<br \/>\npetitioners. He, therefore, submitted that the complaint in question<br \/>\ndeserves to be quashed since it is nothing but, a sheer abuse of the<br \/>\nprocess of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>Nanavaty learned counsel for respondent no.2-original complainant<br \/>\nsubmitted that the petitioners committed criminal breach of trust by<br \/>\nnot abiding by the terms an conditions of agreement entered into<br \/>\nbetween them. The petitioners did not make payment of the entire<br \/>\namount in spite of repeated requests and therefore, respondent no.2<br \/>\nhad no other alternative but, to file the complaint in question. He,<br \/>\ntherefore, submitted that this Court may not exercise its inherent<br \/>\npowers in favour of the petitioners by quashing the complaint.<br \/>\nLearned APP adopted the submissions made by Mr. Nanavaty on behalf of<br \/>\nrespondent no.2-Company.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.<br \/>\nIt appears from the complaint that the petitioners had allegedly not<br \/>\nmade the entire payment towards the goods delivered by respondent<br \/>\nno.2-Company. In pursuance of the said complaint, the petitioners<br \/>\nwere arrested and after their arrest, a settlement was arrived at<br \/>\nbetween the parties, which was reduced into writing in the form of<br \/>\n&#8220;Memorandum of Understanding&#8221; dated 29.12.2004. As per<br \/>\nthe terms of the said M.o.U., the petitioners made part-payment of<br \/>\nthe outstanding amount claimed by respondent no.2-Company and for the<br \/>\nbalance amount, it was mutually agreed between them that an<br \/>\nArbitrator shall be appointed, who shall adjudicate the same. The<br \/>\nparties agreed that the decision of such Arbitrator shall be final<br \/>\nand binding to both. The arbitration proceedings are pending between<br \/>\nthe parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tIn<br \/>\nmy opinion, the dispute between the parties is of a purely civil<br \/>\nnature arising out of a business agreement and in connection with<br \/>\nwhich arbitration proceedings are also pending. If the complaint is<br \/>\npermitted to sustain, then it would amount to sheer abuse of the<br \/>\nprocess of law. In State<br \/>\nof Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 [1992<br \/>\nSupp (1) SCC 335], the Apex Court held in Paragraphs<br \/>\n102 and 103 as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The<br \/>\nfollowing categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration<br \/>\nwherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent<br \/>\npowers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised by the High Court<br \/>\neither to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to<br \/>\nsecure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down<br \/>\nany precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and<br \/>\ninflexible guidelines or rigid formula and to give an exhaustive list<br \/>\nof myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWhere<br \/>\n\tthe allegations made in the first information report or the<br \/>\n\tcomplaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted<br \/>\n\tin their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make<br \/>\n\tout a case against the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWhere<br \/>\n\tthe allegations in the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,<br \/>\n\tjustifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)<br \/>\n\tof the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview<br \/>\n\tof Section 155(2) of the Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWhere<br \/>\n\tthe uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the<br \/>\n\tevidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the<br \/>\n\tcommission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWhere,<br \/>\n\tthe allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence<br \/>\n\tbut constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is<br \/>\n\tpermitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as<br \/>\n\tcontemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWhere<br \/>\n\tthe allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and<br \/>\n\tinherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent persons can<br \/>\n\tever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient grounds for<br \/>\n\tproceeding against the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWhere<br \/>\n\tthere is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of<br \/>\n\tthe Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is<br \/>\n\tinstituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings<br \/>\n\tand\/or where there is a specific provisions in the Code or the<br \/>\n\tconcerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of<br \/>\n\tthe aggrieved party.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWhere<br \/>\n\ta criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and\/or<br \/>\n\twhere the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior<br \/>\n\tmotive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to<br \/>\n\tspite him due to private and personal grudge.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tIn<br \/>\nthe present case, even if the allegations made in the complaint are<br \/>\ntaken at its face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not<br \/>\nconstitute any offence. Keeping in mind the principle laid down by<br \/>\nthe Apex Court in the aforesaid decision and the facts of the present<br \/>\ncase, I am of the opinion that the impugned complaint cannot be<br \/>\nsustained in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed and set<br \/>\naside.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tConsequently,<br \/>\nthe application is allowed. The criminal complaint being C.R. No.<br \/>\nI-481\/2004 registered with Shaherkotda Police Station and<br \/>\nconsequential proceedings initiated thereto, are quashed and set<br \/>\naside. Rule is made absolute.\n<\/p>\n<p>[K.\n<\/p>\n<p>S. JHAVERI, J.]<\/p>\n<p>Pravin\/*<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Mukesh vs The on 30 September, 2011 Author: Ks Jhaveri, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/5938\/2006 6\/ 6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 5938 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be [&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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27577","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mukesh vs The on 30 September, 2011 - 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\/mukesh-vs-the-on-30-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mukesh vs The on 30 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukesh-vs-the-on-30-september-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-04T22:03:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mukesh-vs-the-on-30-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mukesh-vs-the-on-30-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mukesh vs The on 30 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-04T22:03:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mukesh-vs-the-on-30-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1147,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mukesh-vs-the-on-30-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mukesh-vs-the-on-30-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mukesh-vs-the-on-30-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Mukesh vs The on 30 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-04T22:03:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mukesh-vs-the-on-30-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mukesh-vs-the-on-30-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mukesh-vs-the-on-30-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mukesh vs The on 30 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Mukesh vs The on 30 September, 2011 - 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\/mukesh-vs-the-on-30-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mukesh vs The on 30 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukesh-vs-the-on-30-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-04T22:03:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukesh-vs-the-on-30-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukesh-vs-the-on-30-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mukesh vs The on 30 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-04T22:03:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukesh-vs-the-on-30-september-2011"},"wordCount":1147,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukesh-vs-the-on-30-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukesh-vs-the-on-30-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukesh-vs-the-on-30-september-2011","name":"Mukesh vs The on 30 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-04T22:03:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukesh-vs-the-on-30-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukesh-vs-the-on-30-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukesh-vs-the-on-30-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mukesh vs The on 30 September, 2011"}]},{"@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\/27577","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=27577"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27577\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27577"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27577"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27577"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}