{"id":39707,"date":"2010-01-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poonam-chand-jain-anr-vs-fazru-on-28-january-2010"},"modified":"2015-02-15T00:01:25","modified_gmt":"2015-02-14T18:31:25","slug":"poonam-chand-jain-anr-vs-fazru-on-28-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poonam-chand-jain-anr-vs-fazru-on-28-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Poonam Chand Jain & Anr vs Fazru on 28 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Poonam Chand Jain & Anr vs Fazru on 28 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ganguly<\/div>\n
Bench: G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly<\/div>\n
                                                             REPORTABLE\n\n             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n           Criminal Appeal No.203 of 2010\n(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.1812 OF 2009 )\n\n\nPoonam Chand Jain and Another                ..Appellant(s)\n\n                          - Versus -\n\nFazru                                       ..Respondent(s)\n\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
GANGULY, J<\/p>\n
1.   Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.   Assailing   the    judgment     of   High    Court   dated<\/p>\n
     05.02.2009 rendered in Criminal revision No.<\/p>\n
     552\/2000 this appeal was filed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.   The main contention of the appellants before<\/p>\n
     this Court is that without any colour of right<\/p>\n
     the     respondent     herein        repeatedly      filed<\/p>\n
     complaints on same facts and           the    High Court<\/p>\n
     without proper appreciation of the facts and
\n                             1<\/span>
\n     the     legal    position          allowed       the       revision<\/p>\n
     petition of the respondent and caused a grave<\/p>\n
     failure of justice.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.   The material facts are that a complaint was<\/p>\n
     filed    by     the     respondent        in     the   court     of<\/p>\n
     judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nuh on or about<\/p>\n
     10.06.1992 alleging therein that the appellants<\/p>\n
     who own and possess his own house at Faridabad<\/p>\n
     came    into    contact       with    the       respondent      and<\/p>\n
     ultimately       won         the     confidence            of   the<\/p>\n
     respondent.      In    the    complaint         it   was    alleged<\/p>\n
     that the respondent is an illiterate, innocent<\/p>\n
     person with a poor village background and he<\/p>\n
     was induced to purchase some land at village<\/p>\n
     Mohammedpur       for        and     on     behalf         of   the<\/p>\n
     appellants. Thus the respondent entered into an<\/p>\n
     agreement to sell different plots of land of<\/p>\n
     about 60 acres at Mohammedpur village.<\/p>\n
5.   The said complaint further alleges that various<\/p>\n
     sale    deeds    were    executed         and   registered      and
\n                                   2<\/span>
\n     respondent was given the impression that those<\/p>\n
     deeds    were      registered    in      the     names    of<\/p>\n
     appellants and the respondent jointly.<\/p>\n
6.    It is further alleged that the respondent was<\/p>\n
     asked to put his thumb impression on the sale<\/p>\n
     deeds and he was further assured that the land<\/p>\n
     situated in village Mohammedpur, Nuh will be<\/p>\n
     transferred in their joint names of appellants<\/p>\n
     and the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.   According     to   the   complaint,    fraud     was     thus<\/p>\n
     played on the respondent by the appellants and<\/p>\n
     when    the   respondent      realized     the    same    he<\/p>\n
     allegedly filed a complaint in Chhitranjan Park<\/p>\n
     police Station on 28.06.1991 but that police<\/p>\n
     station failed to take any action inter alia on<\/p>\n
     the ground that the entire thing took place<\/p>\n
     beyond their territorial jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
8.   The further case in the complaint is that the<\/p>\n
     respondent      wanted   to   file    complaint     before
\n                               3<\/span>
\n      local police station but as the police failed<\/p>\n
      to    take   any    step,       the    complaint      was   filed<\/p>\n
      before the Magistrate complaining of offences<\/p>\n
      under Sections 420\/120B\/426 IPC.<\/p>\n
9.    On such complaint the matter was taken up by<\/p>\n
      the   Judicial      Magistrate          Ist      Class,   Nuh   and<\/p>\n
      ultimately after a detailed analysis of factual<\/p>\n
      and legal position, the Judicial Magistrate Ist<\/p>\n
      Class came to a conclusion on 13.01.1994 to the<\/p>\n
      following effect:\n<\/p>\n
\n      “Thus the whole story of the complainant
\n      is bundle of falsehood and is liable to be
\n      discarded forthwith without going further
\n      in the investigation of the allegations.
\n      Hence the complaint is dismissed u\/s 420
\n      IPC also qua accused no. 1. Record be
\n      consigned.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.   Challenging        the   order        of   the    Magistrate,     a<\/p>\n
      revision petition was filed in the High Court<\/p>\n
      of Punjab and Haryana by the respondent. The<\/p>\n
      said revision petition was also dismissed by<\/p>\n
      order dated 12.02.1996 and while dismissing the<\/p>\n
                                  4<\/span>
\n      petition the High Court recorded the following<\/p>\n
      finding:\n<\/p>\n
      “Having gone through the judgment of the
\n      trial court and hearing counsel for the
\n      parties, I am of the view that the case is
\n      not for interference. Dismissed.”<\/p>\n
11.   High    Court’s    finding       was    not     challenged      and<\/p>\n
      attained    finality.           It     may     be    noted     that<\/p>\n
      respondent also filed a civil suit on inter<\/p>\n
      alia the same allegations. The said Civil Suit<\/p>\n
      was numbered as 599\/92 and was dismissed for<\/p>\n
      default    by     the   learned        Civil    Judge,       Junior<\/p>\n
      Division, Nuh.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.   The said order of dismissal of the suit became<\/p>\n
      final since no attempt was made to challenge<\/p>\n
      the same.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.   In the meantime, the appellants filed several<\/p>\n
      suits    some     of    which    were        filed   by   several<\/p>\n
      companies against the respondent for permanent<\/p>\n
      injunction and other relief. These suits were<\/p>\n
      numbered as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
\n      “(i) Suit      No.   241\/89        filed     by      M\/s.    SPML
\n      India    Ltd     along    with       Suman         Malik,     w\/o
\n      Balkishan \/ Usman Absul Rahim & Hanif v.
\n      Fazru s\/o Bher Khan and Rahim Bux s\/o Shri
\n      Kaho Khan\n<\/p>\n
      (ii) Suit No.242\/89 dated 28.11.1989 title
\n      M\/s.    SPML     India    Limited         and      others     vs.
\n      Fazru and others.\n<\/p>\n
      (iii)         Suit   No.243\/89        dated        21.11.1989
\n      title    Poonam      Chand      Sethi      and      other     vs.
\n      Fazru and others.\n<\/p>\n
      (iv) Suit No.244\/89 title M\/s. SPML India<\/p>\n
      Limited vs. Fazru and others.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.   All     the     suits     which       were         filed       against<\/p>\n
      respondent       were    clubbed        as      common       questions<\/p>\n
      were    involved        and       there      was     an      analogous<\/p>\n
      hearing.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
15.   All the four suits succeeded with costs and<\/p>\n
      defendants       including          the      respondents            were<\/p>\n
      prevented from the dispossessing the plaintiff<\/p>\n
      over    the     suit     land      except       in     the    process<\/p>\n
      established by law.               Before passing the final<\/p>\n
                                    6<\/span>
\n      decree the Civil Court came to the following<\/p>\n
      finding:\n<\/p>\n
\n      “23. From the oral as well as documentary
\n      evidence led by the plaintiffs, it is
\n      proved that the plaintiffs have purchased
\n      the suit land from its original owners and
\n      Usman, Hanif and Abdul Rahim are in
\n      cultivating possession of the suit land as
\n      a lessee.   The defendant no.1 has himself
\n      admitted that he is not in possession of
\n      the suit land.     The defendant no.2 has
\n      already   admitted   the   claim  of   the
\n      plaintiffs.    Therefore, it is concluded
\n      that the plaintiffs are entitled to the
\n      decree of permanent injunction as prayed
\n      for.    Hence, this issue is decided in
\n      favour of the plaintiffs and against the
\n      defendants.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16.   The aforesaid decree passed on 27.10.1997 was<\/p>\n
      not challenged by the respondent and therefore<\/p>\n
      become final.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
17.   After the civil suits were decreed on 24.10.97,<\/p>\n
      just   a   month   thereafter   on   25.11.97    another<\/p>\n
      complaint was filed by the respondent in the<\/p>\n
      Court of Judicial Magistrate on virtually the<\/p>\n
      same facts.     In fact, paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 9<\/p>\n
      of   the   subsequent   complaint    has   a    striking<\/p>\n
                              7<\/span>
\n      similarity with the previous one. It may be<\/p>\n
      mentioned that in the second complaint the fact<\/p>\n
      of    filing    of      the       first       complaint           and       its<\/p>\n
      dismissal was totally suppressed.<\/p>\n
18.   On    such    complaint           the     Magistrate         passed          an<\/p>\n
      order    summoning        the            appellants          1        and    2.<\/p>\n
      Challenging      the     said         order       of    summoning           the<\/p>\n
      appellants,      the     appellants               moved      a    criminal<\/p>\n
      revision       before         the        Court         of    Additional<\/p>\n
      Sessions       Judge,     Gurgaon            and       the   Additional<\/p>\n
      Sessions Judge, Gurgaon allowed the revision<\/p>\n
      and the summoning order was set aside by an<\/p>\n
      order dated 9.7.99.                    Against that order the<\/p>\n
      respondent      moved         a       criminal         revision         being<\/p>\n
      Criminal     Revision         No.552         of    2000      before         the<\/p>\n
      High Court and the Hon’ble High Court reversed<\/p>\n
      the   order     passed        by      the    Additional           Sessions<\/p>\n
      Judge   and     directed           the      appellants           to    appear<\/p>\n
      before the trial Court where appellants were<\/p>\n
      given liberty to raise all the points and seek<\/p>\n
                                        8<\/span>
\n      reconsideration of the order in accordance with<\/p>\n
      Section 245 of Criminal Procedure Code.<\/p>\n
19.   Against      that      order        the   appellants     filed   a<\/p>\n
      special      leave        petition        before     this    Court<\/p>\n
      wherein leave was granted and it was numbered<\/p>\n
      as Criminal Appeal No.371\/04.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
20.   In the said criminal appeal this Court remanded<\/p>\n
      the   matter      to    the     High      Court    for   recording<\/p>\n
      positive     finding       on       relevant      issues.     This<\/p>\n
      Court while remanding the matter was of the<\/p>\n
      opinion that High Court has not considered the<\/p>\n
      legality     of     the    order      directing      issuance    of<\/p>\n
      summon keeping in view the law laid down by<\/p>\n
      this Court.         The exact directions given by this<\/p>\n
      Court   in    its      concluding         portion    vide    order<\/p>\n
      dated 15.10.04 in the aforesaid criminal appeal<\/p>\n
      is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “As the High Court has not considered the
\n      legality of the order directing issuance
\n      of process keeping in view the law laid
\n      down by this Court, we feel it would be
\n      proper to remit the matter to the High
\n                                      9<\/span>
\n      Court to record positive findings on the
\n      relevant issues”.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
21.   After    the    matter      was    remanded     to    the     High<\/p>\n
      Court,    the    High    Court      passed      the     impugned<\/p>\n
      judgment holding therein that the Magistrate’s<\/p>\n
      order dated 9.1.99 whereby the appellants have<\/p>\n
      been summoned is restored and the appellants<\/p>\n
      were asked to face trial.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
22.   In the background of these facts, the question<\/p>\n
      which crops-up for determination by this Court<\/p>\n
      is   whether     after      an    order   of    dismissal       of<\/p>\n
      complaint has attains finality, the complainant<\/p>\n
      can file another complaint on almost identical<\/p>\n
      facts    without        disclosing        in     the         second<\/p>\n
      complaint      the   fact    of    either      filing    of    the<\/p>\n
      first complaint or its dismissal.<\/p>\n
23.   Almost      similar      questions          came        up     for<\/p>\n
      consideration before this Court in the case of<\/p>\n
      Pramatha Nath Talukdar and another vs. Saroj<\/p>\n
      Ranjan Sarkar – (AIR 1962 SC 876). The majority
\n                                   10<\/span>
\njudgment in Pramatha Nath (supra) was delivered<\/p>\n
by Justice Kapur. His Lordship held that an<\/p>\n
order of dismissal under Section 203 of the<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure Code (for short `the Code’)<\/p>\n
is, however, no bar to the entertainment of a<\/p>\n
second complaint on the same facts but it can<\/p>\n
be       entertained         only       in          exceptional<\/p>\n
circumstances.        This      Court        explained        the<\/p>\n
exceptional     circumstances         as     (a)    where     the<\/p>\n
previous order was passed on incomplete record<\/p>\n
(b) or on a misunderstanding of the nature of<\/p>\n
the complaint (c) or the order which was passed<\/p>\n
was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish or (d)<\/p>\n
where     new    facts       which     could        not,     with<\/p>\n
reasonable diligence, have been brought on the<\/p>\n
record in the previous proceedings.                 This Court<\/p>\n
made it very clear that interest of justice<\/p>\n
cannot permit that after a decision has been<\/p>\n
given on a complaint upon full consideration of<\/p>\n
the     case,   the   complainant          should    be     given<\/p>\n
another     opportunity        to    have    the     complaint<\/p>\n
enquired into again.            In paragraph 50 of the
\n                          11<\/span>
\n      judgment the majority judgment of this Court<\/p>\n
      opined that fresh evidence or fresh facts must<\/p>\n
      be   such   which       could   not    with      reasonable<\/p>\n
      diligence   have    been    brought    on    record.       This<\/p>\n
      Court   very     clearly    held   that     it   cannot     be<\/p>\n
      settled law which permits the complainant to<\/p>\n
      place some evidence before the Magistrate which<\/p>\n
      are in his possession and then if the complaint<\/p>\n
      is   dismissed      adduce      some   more       evidence.<\/p>\n
      According to this Court such a course is not<\/p>\n
      permitted on a correct view of the law. (para<\/p>\n
      50, page 899)<\/p>\n
24.    This question again came up for consideration<\/p>\n
      before this Court in Jatinder Singh and others<\/p>\n
      vs. Ranjit Kaur<\/a> – (AIR 2001 SC 784).                   There<\/p>\n
      also this Court by relying on the principle in<\/p>\n
      Pramatha Nath (supra) held that there is no<\/p>\n
      provision in the Code or in any other statute<\/p>\n
      which debars complainant from filing a second<\/p>\n
      complaint   on    the    same   allegation       as   in   the<\/p>\n
      first complaint. But this Court added when a
\n                                 12<\/span>
\nMagistrate conducts an enquiry under Section<\/p>\n
202 of the Code and dismisses a complaint on<\/p>\n
merits a second complaint on the same facts<\/p>\n
could not be made unless there are `exceptional<\/p>\n
circumstances’.        This Court held in para 12 if<\/p>\n
the dismissal of the first complaint is not on<\/p>\n
merit but the dismissal is for the default of<\/p>\n
the complainant then there is no bar in the<\/p>\n
filing a second complaint on the same facts.<\/p>\n
However if the dismissal of the complaint under<\/p>\n
Section    203    of   the        Code   was    on   merit    the<\/p>\n
position will be different.                    Saying so, the<\/p>\n
learned Judges held that the controversy has<\/p>\n
been settled by this Court in Pramatha Nath<\/p>\n
(supra) and quoted the observation of Justice<\/p>\n
Kapur     in     paragraph         48    of    Pramatha      Nath<\/p>\n
(supra):-\n<\/p>\n
“……An order of dismissal under S. 203,
\nCriminal Procedure Code, is, however, no
\nbar to the entertainment of a second
\ncomplaint on the same facts but it will be
\nentertained       only    in     exceptional
\ncircumstances, e.g., where the previous
\norder was passed on an incomplete record
\nor on a misunderstanding of the nature of
\nthe complaint or it was manifestly absurd,
\n                             13<\/span>
\n      unjust or foolish or where new facts which
\n      could not, with reasonable diligence, have
\n      been brought on the record in the previous
\n      proceedings have been adduced. It cannot
\n      be said to be in the interest of justice
\n      that after a decision has been given
\n      against   the  complainant   upon  a       full
\n      consideration of his case, he or any other
\n      person should be given another opportunity
\n      to have his complaint enquired into……”<\/p>\n
25.   Again in Mahesh Chand vs. B. Janardhan Reddy<\/p>\n
      and<\/a> another – (2003) 1 SCC 734, a three Judge<\/p>\n
      Bench of this Court considered this question in<\/p>\n
      paragraph 19 at page 740 of the report.                  The<\/p>\n
      learned Judges of this court held that a second<\/p>\n
      complaint is not completely barred nor is there<\/p>\n
      any statutory bar in filing a second complaint<\/p>\n
      on the same facts in a case where a previous<\/p>\n
      complaint was dismissed without assigning any<\/p>\n
      reason. The Magistrate under Section 204 of the<\/p>\n
      Code   can    take    cognizance     of   an   offence    and<\/p>\n
      issue process if there is sufficient ground for<\/p>\n
      proceeding. In Mahesh Chand (supra) this Court<\/p>\n
      relied on the ratio in Pramatha Nath (supra)<\/p>\n
      and    held   if     the     first   complaint   had     been<\/p>\n
      dismissed      the         second    complaint    can      be
\n                                   14<\/span>
\n      entertained only in exceptional circumstances<\/p>\n
      and    thereafter       the   exceptional          circumstances<\/p>\n
      pointed     out    in    Pramatha         Nath     (supra)    were<\/p>\n
      reiterated.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
26.   Therefore, this Court holds that the ratio in<\/p>\n
      Pramatha    Nath     (supra)        is    still     holding    the<\/p>\n
      field.     The same principle has been reiterated<\/p>\n
      once again by this Court in Hiralal and others<\/p>\n
      vs. State of U.P. & others – AIR 2009 SC 2380.<\/p>\n
      In    paragraph    14    of     the      judgment    this    Court<\/p>\n
      expressly      quoted     the      ratio      in   Mahesh    Chand<\/p>\n
      (supra) discussed hereabove.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
27.   Following the aforesaid principles which are<\/p>\n
      more or less settled and are holding the field<\/p>\n
      since 1962 and have been repeatedly followed by<\/p>\n
      this Court, we are of the view that the second<\/p>\n
      complaint in this case was on almost identical<\/p>\n
      facts which was raised in the first complaint<\/p>\n
      and    which   was      dismissed        on   merits.    So    the<\/p>\n
      second    complaint      is     not      maintainable.        This
\n                                    15<\/span>
\n      Court     finds      that        the   core    of      both      the<\/p>\n
      complaints      is     the    same.      Nothing       has    been<\/p>\n
      disclosed      in    the     second     complaint      which      is<\/p>\n
      substantially new and not disclosed in first<\/p>\n
      complaint.      No case is made out that even after<\/p>\n
      the exercise of due diligence the facts alleged<\/p>\n
      in the second complaint were not within the<\/p>\n
      application of the first complainant. In fact<\/p>\n
      such a case could not be made out since the<\/p>\n
      facts     in    both       the     complaints       are     almost<\/p>\n
      identical. Therefore, the second complaint is<\/p>\n
      not   covered       within       exceptional    circumstances<\/p>\n
      explained in Pramatha Nath (supra).                       In that<\/p>\n
      view of the matter the second complaint in the<\/p>\n
      facts of this case, cannot be entertained.<\/p>\n
28.   Unfortunately,         the    High     Court    fell      into    an<\/p>\n
      error in not appreciating the legal position in<\/p>\n
      its     correct      perspective       while    allowing         the<\/p>\n
      revision petition of the respondent. The order<\/p>\n
      passed     by       the      High      Court    in        revision<\/p>\n
                                    16<\/span>
\n      jurisdiction   cannot        be   sustained   and   is<\/p>\n
      quashed.   This appeal succeeds.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
29.   There shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n
                               ………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                               (G.S SINGHVI)<\/p>\n
                               …………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                               (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)<\/p>\n
New Delhi
\nJanuary 28, 2010<\/p>\n
                              17<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Poonam Chand Jain & Anr vs Fazru on 28 January, 2010 Author: Ganguly Bench: G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.203 of 2010 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.1812 OF 2009 ) Poonam Chand Jain and Another ..Appellant(s) – Versus […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39707","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPoonam Chand Jain & Anr vs Fazru on 28 January, 2010 - 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\/poonam-chand-jain-anr-vs-fazru-on-28-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Poonam Chand Jain & Anr vs Fazru on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poonam-chand-jain-anr-vs-fazru-on-28-january-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-14T18:31:25+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\\\/poonam-chand-jain-anr-vs-fazru-on-28-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poonam-chand-jain-anr-vs-fazru-on-28-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Poonam Chand Jain & Anr vs Fazru on 28 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-14T18:31:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poonam-chand-jain-anr-vs-fazru-on-28-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2370,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poonam-chand-jain-anr-vs-fazru-on-28-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poonam-chand-jain-anr-vs-fazru-on-28-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poonam-chand-jain-anr-vs-fazru-on-28-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Poonam Chand Jain & Anr vs Fazru on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-14T18:31:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poonam-chand-jain-anr-vs-fazru-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poonam-chand-jain-anr-vs-fazru-on-28-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poonam-chand-jain-anr-vs-fazru-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Poonam Chand Jain & Anr vs Fazru on 28 January, 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":"Poonam Chand Jain & Anr vs Fazru on 28 January, 2010 - 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\/poonam-chand-jain-anr-vs-fazru-on-28-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Poonam Chand Jain & Anr vs Fazru on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poonam-chand-jain-anr-vs-fazru-on-28-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-14T18:31:25+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\/poonam-chand-jain-anr-vs-fazru-on-28-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poonam-chand-jain-anr-vs-fazru-on-28-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Poonam Chand Jain & Anr vs Fazru on 28 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-14T18:31:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poonam-chand-jain-anr-vs-fazru-on-28-january-2010"},"wordCount":2370,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poonam-chand-jain-anr-vs-fazru-on-28-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poonam-chand-jain-anr-vs-fazru-on-28-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poonam-chand-jain-anr-vs-fazru-on-28-january-2010","name":"Poonam Chand Jain & Anr vs Fazru on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-14T18:31:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poonam-chand-jain-anr-vs-fazru-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poonam-chand-jain-anr-vs-fazru-on-28-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poonam-chand-jain-anr-vs-fazru-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Poonam Chand Jain & Anr vs Fazru on 28 January, 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\/39707","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=39707"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39707\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39707"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39707"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39707"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}