{"id":33186,"date":"2010-02-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-pandey-pappu-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-4-february-2010"},"modified":"2016-11-04T03:28:33","modified_gmt":"2016-11-03T21:58:33","slug":"rajesh-kumar-pandey-pappu-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-4-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-pandey-pappu-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-4-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Rajesh Kumar Pandey @ Pappu vs The State Of U.P. on 4 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rajesh Kumar Pandey @ Pappu vs The State Of U.P. on 4 February, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>Case :- U\/S 482\/378\/407 No. - 1391 of 2009\n\nPetitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey @ Pappu\nRespondent :- The State Of U.P.\nPetitioner Counsel :- J.N. Singh\nRespondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate\n\nHon'ble Ashok Srivastava,J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>A complaint was filed by opposite party no. 2 Smt. Raj Rani against the<\/p>\n<p>petitioners on 7.9.2006 before the court of learned 1st Addl. Chief Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate, Raebareli. From perusal of the said complaint, it is evident that<br \/>\nopposite party no. 2 is wife of petitioner no. 1 Rajesh Kumar Pandey alias<br \/>\nPappu. They were married to each other on 5.6.1995. Two issues were born to<br \/>\nthe couple out of this wedlock. The age of the elder child on the date of<br \/>\ncomplaint was about 9 years whereas that of the younger one was about 6<br \/>\nyears. The petitioner no. 1 is husband, petitioner no. 2 is father-in-law,<br \/>\npetitioner no. 3 is mother-in-law, petitioner no. 4 is brother-in-law (Jeth),<br \/>\npetitioner no. 5 is sister-in-law (Jethani), petitioner no. 6 is brother-in-law<br \/>\n(Dewar) and petitioner no. 7 is sister-in-law (Nanad) of opposite party no. 2.<br \/>\nIt has been alleged in the complaint that immediately after the Vidai, opposite<br \/>\nparty no. 2 was constantly subjected to torture, mental as well as physical, for<br \/>\ndowry. She tolerated all that and remained with the petitioners in her nuptial<br \/>\nhome. Parents of opposite party no. 2 had tried to intervene in the matter and<br \/>\ntold the petitioners that their financial condition was not good and they were<br \/>\nnot in a position to meet the demand of dowry. It has further been alleged in<br \/>\nthe complaint that on some day in the year 2003, all the petitioners assaulted<br \/>\nopposite party no. 2 and turned her out and therefore she came back to her<br \/>\nfather&#8217;s home. The parents of opposite party no. 2 again went to the<br \/>\npetitioners with the request that opposite party no. 2 should be allowed to<br \/>\ncome back but in vain. On 31.5.2006 at about 2.00 P.M. opposite party no. 2<br \/>\nalongwith her father and a few other persons of her village went to the<br \/>\nresidence of the petitioners and again tried to persuade them with the request<br \/>\nthat opposite party no. 2 be permitted to come back to her nuptial home. This<br \/>\nrequest irritated all the petitioners and they started abusing the opposite party<br \/>\nno. 2, her father and the persons who had gone there with them. Thereafter<br \/>\nthey came back to their village. Opposite party no. 2 had tried to lodge a<br \/>\nreport with the police in the matter but no report was lodged and even the<br \/>\n Police Chief of the district did not pay any heed to her complaint, therefore,<br \/>\nshe moved a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the learned<br \/>\nMagistrate. The complaint is under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C.<br \/>\nLearned Magistrate examined opposite party no. 2\/ complainant under Section<br \/>\n200 Cr.P.C. He also examined two witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. After<br \/>\nhearing, the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that there was substance in<br \/>\nthe matter and, therefore, vide his order dated 13.9.2007 summoned all the<br \/>\npetitioners under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved<br \/>\nby this order, the present petition has been moved.\n<\/p>\n<p>The case was listed for hearing on 18.1.2010. On that date learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe petitioners and learned A.G.A. were present but none was present for<br \/>\nopposite party no. 2 despite the fact that she was served personally with the<br \/>\nnotice issued by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A.\n<\/p>\n<p>It has been argued from the side of the petitioners that opposite party no. 2 is<br \/>\nan ambitious lady and she does not like to live in a joint family. She wants<br \/>\nthat her husband i.e. petitioner no. 1 should live separately alongwith her and<br \/>\ntheir children in a separate house. The parents and other relatives of opposite<br \/>\nparty no. 2 were also persuading her and pressurizing the petitioner no. 1 to<br \/>\nlive separately but the family circumstances of petitioner no. 1 did not permit<br \/>\nit and therefore he refused to live separately from his parents and other family<br \/>\nmembers. Out of sheer frustration opposite party no. 2 left the house of<br \/>\npetitioners alongwith her two children with her clothes, ornaments etc.<br \/>\nPetitioner no. 1 has been making sincere efforts since last many years that the<br \/>\nopposite party no. 2 should return to her nuptial home but she is not ready for<br \/>\nthe same. It has further been submitted from the side of the petitioners that to<br \/>\npressurize them, a false complaint has been filed and the learned Magistrate<br \/>\nissued processes without considering all the aspects of the case in a prototype<br \/>\nand routine manner. In these circumstances, it has been submitted that petition<br \/>\nunder Section 482 Cr.P.C. be allowed and the impugned order be quashed and<br \/>\nset aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned A.G.A. has opposed this petition saying that the order impugned is<br \/>\nlegal and no interference by this Court is required in the matter.<br \/>\n I have carefully examined the order passed by the learned Magistrate and the<br \/>\nrecords. Learned Magistrate has not examined this aspect of the case as to<br \/>\nwhy the opposite party no. 2 did not make a complaint since 2003. It is also<br \/>\nnot clear from the order impugned whether it relates to the incident of<br \/>\n31.5.2006 or to the set of incidents which had taken place before 2003. It<br \/>\nappears a bit unusual that demand for dowry by the petitioners was made<br \/>\nconstantly for a period of some 8 years even after the birth of two children<br \/>\nand no report in this regard was made to the police, or any administrative<br \/>\nofficer by opposite party no. 2 or her parents. From perusal of the complaint it<br \/>\nis evident that no date has been mentioned in it on which the opposite party<br \/>\nno. 2 was turned out of her nuptial home in the year 2003.\n<\/p>\n<p>It appears that the learned Magistrate has not made proper inquiry in the<br \/>\nmatter and has not tried to find out the reason for delay in filing the complaint<br \/>\ncase nor tried to find out the reason as to under what circumstances, the lady<br \/>\ndid not make even a single complaint during the last 8 years. From the order<br \/>\nimpugned it is evident that learned Magistrate has passed the order in the most<br \/>\ncursory manner which reflects the fact that he did not apply his mind while<br \/>\npassing the impugned order. He should have examined the circumstances<br \/>\nunder which, the lady waited for some 8 years before filing the complaint.\n<\/p>\n<p>None was present on behalf of opposite party no. 2 on the date when the<br \/>\npetition was heard to answer the queries of the court.\n<\/p>\n<p>Considering all the aspects of the case, I am of the view that petition has got<br \/>\nforce and it should be allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Accordingly the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.9.2007<br \/>\npassed by learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)\/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.<br \/>\n22, Raebareli in Complaint Case No. 547 of 2008, Smt. Raj Rani Versus<br \/>\nRajesh Kumar Pandey alias Pappu and others is quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>Order Date :- 4.2.2010<br \/>\nS.B.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Allahabad High Court Rajesh Kumar Pandey @ Pappu vs The State Of U.P. on 4 February, 2010 Case :- U\/S 482\/378\/407 No. &#8211; 1391 of 2009 Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey @ Pappu Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- J.N. Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate Hon&#8217;ble Ashok Srivastava,J. A complaint was filed [&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":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33186","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Rajesh Kumar Pandey @ Pappu vs The State Of U.P. on 4 February, 2010 - 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\/rajesh-kumar-pandey-pappu-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-4-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajesh Kumar Pandey @ Pappu vs The State Of U.P. on 4 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-pandey-pappu-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-4-february-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-03T21:58:33+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\\\/rajesh-kumar-pandey-pappu-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-4-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-pandey-pappu-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-4-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajesh Kumar Pandey @ Pappu vs The State Of U.P. on 4 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-03T21:58:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-pandey-pappu-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-4-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1143,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-pandey-pappu-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-4-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-pandey-pappu-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-4-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-pandey-pappu-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-4-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Rajesh Kumar Pandey @ Pappu vs The State Of U.P. on 4 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-03T21:58:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-pandey-pappu-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-4-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-pandey-pappu-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-4-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-pandey-pappu-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-4-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajesh Kumar Pandey @ Pappu vs The State Of U.P. on 4 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/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":"Rajesh Kumar Pandey @ Pappu vs The State Of U.P. on 4 February, 2010 - 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\/rajesh-kumar-pandey-pappu-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-4-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajesh Kumar Pandey @ Pappu vs The State Of U.P. on 4 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-pandey-pappu-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-4-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-03T21:58:33+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\/rajesh-kumar-pandey-pappu-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-4-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-pandey-pappu-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-4-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajesh Kumar Pandey @ Pappu vs The State Of U.P. on 4 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-03T21:58:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-pandey-pappu-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-4-february-2010"},"wordCount":1143,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-pandey-pappu-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-4-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-pandey-pappu-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-4-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-pandey-pappu-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-4-february-2010","name":"Rajesh Kumar Pandey @ Pappu vs The State Of U.P. on 4 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-03T21:58:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-pandey-pappu-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-4-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-pandey-pappu-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-4-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-pandey-pappu-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-4-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajesh Kumar Pandey @ Pappu vs The State Of U.P. on 4 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/33186","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=33186"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33186\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33186"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33186"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33186"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}