{"id":37102,"date":"2009-03-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-mathew-vs-station-house-officer-on-20-march-2009"},"modified":"2015-01-26T08:57:17","modified_gmt":"2015-01-26T03:27:17","slug":"kunnathu-mathew-vs-station-house-officer-on-20-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-mathew-vs-station-house-officer-on-20-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Kunnathu Mathew vs Station House Officer on 20 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Kunnathu Mathew vs Station House Officer on 20 March, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 2966 of 2005()\n\n\n1. KUNNATHU MATHEW, S\/O. DEVASSYA,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. MURALI KANDATHINKARA, S\/O.KRISHNANKUTTY,\n3. ANOOP MATHEW, S\/O. KUNNATHU MATHEW,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA,\n\n3. AIPENPARAMBIL SUNNY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :20\/03\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                   S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.\n                      ---------------------------\n                   Crl.R.P.No.2966 of 2005 - A\n                     -----------------------------\n             Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009\n\n                              O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>      This revision is filed by the accused in C.C.No.622\/2002 on<\/p>\n<p>the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thaliparamba,<\/p>\n<p>questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of an order<\/p>\n<p>passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the application<\/p>\n<p>moved by the Assistant Public Prosecutor for withdrawal of the<\/p>\n<p>case under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The<\/p>\n<p>revision petitioners are accused Nos. 1, 4, and 5 in the above<\/p>\n<p>case, and of the other two accused, one is reported to be no<\/p>\n<p>more and other absconding.         Indictment levelled against the<\/p>\n<p>accused is for offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148,<\/p>\n<p>323 and 324 r\/w 149 IPC on a charge laid by the Sub Inspector<\/p>\n<p>of Police, Payyavur. After examination of one of the witnesses,<\/p>\n<p>an attestor to the mahazar as PW1, the Assistant Public<\/p>\n<p>Prosecutor moved an application under Section 321 of the Code<\/p>\n<p>of Criminal Procedure for withdrawal of the case submitting that<\/p>\n<p>such withdrawal is required to serve public interest.     Learned<\/p>\n<p>Crl.R.P.No.2966 of 2005 &#8211; A<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Magistrate issued notice to the defacto complainant, who is said<\/p>\n<p>to have suffered injuries at the hands of the accused. Appearing<\/p>\n<p>before the court, the defacto complainant filed objections<\/p>\n<p>contending that the application moved by the Assistant Public<\/p>\n<p>Prosecutor is tainted with malafides and if allowed it would cause<\/p>\n<p>miscarriage of justice.    Learned Magistrate after examining the<\/p>\n<p>materials and hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor was not<\/p>\n<p>satisfied with the grounds raised for withdrawal of the case and,<\/p>\n<p>accordingly, the petition moved by the Assistant Public Prosecutor<\/p>\n<p>was dismissed.      Impeaching the correctness of the order, as<\/p>\n<p>already indicated, the accused facing the trial, A1, A4 and A5<\/p>\n<p>have moved this revision.\n<\/p>\n<pre>      2.    I     heard    the   learned    counsel     for    the\n\npetitioners\/accused.\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>      3.    It is submitted that in the consideration of an<\/p>\n<p>application moved by the Assistant Public Prosecutor under<\/p>\n<p>Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court has got<\/p>\n<p>only supervisory jurisdiction and the only question to be looked<\/p>\n<p>into is whether the Assistant Public Prosecutor has applied his<\/p>\n<p>Crl.R.P.No.2966 of 2005 &#8211; A<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>mind on the materials involved to form a conclusion that the<\/p>\n<p>withdrawal of the case is warranted. I am not impressed by the<\/p>\n<p>submission made by the learned counsel since an order to be<\/p>\n<p>passed by the court under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal<\/p>\n<p>Procedure is not based on the will and pleasure of the Assistant<\/p>\n<p>Public Prosecutor. Prima facie, the court must be satisfied that<\/p>\n<p>the application is moved bona fide and the withdrawal of the case<\/p>\n<p>is necessary in &#8216;public interest&#8217;.   If there is any material or<\/p>\n<p>circumstance indicating that the withdrawal is influenced by<\/p>\n<p>extraneous materials and not in public interest, necessarily and<\/p>\n<p>inevitably the request of withdrawal has to be turned down. In<\/p>\n<p>the present case, the defacto complainant-injured has brought to<\/p>\n<p>the notice of the court that there is no change of circumstance<\/p>\n<p>and he wants the prosecution of the case. On the contrary, the<\/p>\n<p>Assistant Public Prosecutor has opined that there is change of<\/p>\n<p>circumstance and no purpose will be served by proceeding with<\/p>\n<p>the trial of the case. On what basis Assistant Public Prosecutor<\/p>\n<p>has formed such an opinion is not borne out by any material. He<\/p>\n<p>has not filed any affidavit as to what was the information to hold<\/p>\n<p>Crl.R.P.No.2966 of 2005 &#8211; A<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>that the withdrawal case is necessary in &#8216;public interest&#8217;. In this<\/p>\n<p>context, it is worthwhile to take note of the decision of the Apex<\/p>\n<p>Court in Abdul Karim etc. etc. v. State of Karnataka and<\/p>\n<p>others etc. (AIR 2001 SC 116). The Supreme Court has in the<\/p>\n<p>above decision held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                &#8220;&#8230;..it is for the public prosecutor to apply his<br \/>\n          mind to all the relevant material and, in good faith, to<br \/>\n          be satisfied thereon that the public interest will be<br \/>\n          served by his withdrawal from the prosecution.         In<br \/>\n          turn, the Court has to be satisfied, after considering all<br \/>\n          that material, that the Public Prosecutor has applied<br \/>\n          his mind independently thereto, that the Public<br \/>\n          Prosecutor, acting in good faith is of the opinion that<br \/>\n          his withdrawal from the prosecution is in the public<br \/>\n          interest, and    that such withdrawal will not stifle or<br \/>\n          thwart the process of law or cause manifest injustice.<br \/>\n          It must therefore follow that the application under<br \/>\n          Section 321 must aver that the Public Prosecutor is, in<br \/>\n          good faith, satisfied, on consideration of all relevant<br \/>\n          material, that his withdrawal from the prosecution is in<br \/>\n          the public interest and it will not stifle or thwart the<br \/>\n          process of law or cause injustice. The material that<br \/>\n          the Public Prosecutor has considered must be set out,<br \/>\n          briefly but concisely, in the application or in an<br \/>\n          affidavit annexed to the application or, in a given case,<br \/>\n          placed before the Court, with its permission, in a<br \/>\n          sealed envelope. The Court has to give an informed<br \/>\n          consent.    It must be satisfied that this material can<br \/>\n          reasonably lead to the conclusion that the withdrawal<br \/>\n          of the Public Prosecutor from the prosecution will serve<br \/>\n          the public interest; but it is not for the Court to weigh<br \/>\n          the material.     The Court must be satisfied that the<br \/>\n          Public Prosecutor has considered the material and, in<br \/>\n          good faith, reached the conclusion that his withdrawal<br \/>\n          from the prosecution will serve the public interest.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>          The Court must also consider whether the grant of<\/p>\n<p>Crl.R.P.No.2966 of 2005 &#8211; A<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>          consent may thwart or stifle the course of law or result<br \/>\n          in manifest injustice. If, upon such consideration, the<br \/>\n          Court accords consent, it must make such order on the<br \/>\n          application as will indicate to a higher court that it has<br \/>\n          done all that the law requires it to do before granting<br \/>\n          consent.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      4.    After having heard the learned counsel for the revision<\/p>\n<p>petitioners and perusing the materials in the case, I find that the<\/p>\n<p>order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the application<\/p>\n<p>moved by the Assistant Public Prosecutor for withdrawal of the<\/p>\n<p>case is proper and valid and it does not call for any interference.<\/p>\n<p>The case has to continue to reach its logical conclusion, and the<\/p>\n<p>accused, if they are innocent, will get sufficient opportunity to<\/p>\n<p>establish their innocence in trial. They cannot have a short cut<\/p>\n<p>method to avoid prosecution by recourse to withdrawal of the<\/p>\n<p>case at the instance of the Assistant Public Prosecutor.<\/p>\n<p>      This revision is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                                            S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,<br \/>\n                                                      JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n<p>bkn\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Kunnathu Mathew vs Station House Officer on 20 March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2966 of 2005() 1. KUNNATHU MATHEW, S\/O. DEVASSYA, &#8230; Petitioner 2. MURALI KANDATHINKARA, S\/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, 3. ANOOP MATHEW, S\/O. KUNNATHU MATHEW, Vs 1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, &#8230; Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, 3. AIPENPARAMBIL [&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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-37102","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Kunnathu Mathew vs Station House Officer on 20 March, 2009 - 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\/kunnathu-mathew-vs-station-house-officer-on-20-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kunnathu Mathew vs Station House Officer on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-mathew-vs-station-house-officer-on-20-march-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-26T03:27:17+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\/kunnathu-mathew-vs-station-house-officer-on-20-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-mathew-vs-station-house-officer-on-20-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kunnathu Mathew vs Station House Officer on 20 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-26T03:27:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-mathew-vs-station-house-officer-on-20-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1063,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-mathew-vs-station-house-officer-on-20-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-mathew-vs-station-house-officer-on-20-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-mathew-vs-station-house-officer-on-20-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Kunnathu Mathew vs Station House Officer on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-26T03:27:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-mathew-vs-station-house-officer-on-20-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-mathew-vs-station-house-officer-on-20-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-mathew-vs-station-house-officer-on-20-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kunnathu Mathew vs Station House Officer on 20 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/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":"Kunnathu Mathew vs Station House Officer on 20 March, 2009 - 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\/kunnathu-mathew-vs-station-house-officer-on-20-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kunnathu Mathew vs Station House Officer on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-mathew-vs-station-house-officer-on-20-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-26T03:27:17+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\/kunnathu-mathew-vs-station-house-officer-on-20-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-mathew-vs-station-house-officer-on-20-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kunnathu Mathew vs Station House Officer on 20 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-26T03:27:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-mathew-vs-station-house-officer-on-20-march-2009"},"wordCount":1063,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-mathew-vs-station-house-officer-on-20-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-mathew-vs-station-house-officer-on-20-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-mathew-vs-station-house-officer-on-20-march-2009","name":"Kunnathu Mathew vs Station House Officer on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-26T03:27:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-mathew-vs-station-house-officer-on-20-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-mathew-vs-station-house-officer-on-20-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-mathew-vs-station-house-officer-on-20-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kunnathu Mathew vs Station House Officer on 20 March, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/37102","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=37102"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37102\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37102"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37102"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37102"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}