{"id":51242,"date":"2005-02-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-02-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-subramanian-senthil-vs-state-rep-by-on-22-february-2005"},"modified":"2019-02-08T14:09:05","modified_gmt":"2019-02-08T08:39:05","slug":"s-subramanian-senthil-vs-state-rep-by-on-22-february-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-subramanian-senthil-vs-state-rep-by-on-22-february-2005","title":{"rendered":"S.Subramanian @ Senthil vs State Rep. By on 22 February, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S.Subramanian @ Senthil vs State Rep. By on 22 February, 2005<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 22\/02\/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Honourable  Mr.Justice M.CHOCKALINGAM      \n\nCrl.OP.No. 32871  of 2004\nand \nCRL.M.P.NO.10462 OF 2004 AND 544 OF 2005       \n\n\n1.S.Subramanian @ Senthil  \n2.S.Sambandam   \n3.S.Bakialakshmi \n4.S.Rajaram                           ...Petitioners\n\n-vs-\n\nState rep. by\nthe Inspector of Police\nAll Women Police Station, \nRanipet.                             ...Respondent\n\n\n        Petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C.  for the relief as  stated\ntherein.\n\nFor Petitioners        :  Mr.K.S.Dinakaran\n\nFor Respondent :  Mr.  K.Doraisamy \n                Public Prosecutor\n                assisted by Mr.V.Arul\n                Government Advocate( Crl.Side)\n\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p>                The   petitioners  have  filed  the  above  Criminal  Original<br \/>\npetition praying to call for the records in C.C.No.206 of 2004 on the file  of<br \/>\nthe  Judicial  Magistrate  No.II,  Walajapet  and  quash  the  order of taking<br \/>\ncognizance  dated  5.8.2004  and  consequent  issuance  of  summons   to   the<br \/>\npetitioners and to allow this Criminal Original Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the<br \/>\nlearned Public Prosecutor.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.This  criminal  Original  petition has been brought forth by<br \/>\nthe petitioners four in number, who are  facing  the  proceedings  before  the<br \/>\nCourt  of  Judicial  Magistrate  II, Walajapet in C.C.No.206 of 2004 which was<br \/>\ntaken cognizance by the said Court on 5.8.2004, on a charge sheet filed by the<br \/>\nrespondent police under Sections 498A, 294B, 342, 506( I) IPC and Section 4 of<br \/>\nDowry Prohibition Act as against  the  first  petitioner  and  under  Sections<br \/>\n498A,342  read with 34,114 read with 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as against the<br \/>\nother petitioners\/accused 2 to 4 .\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.   Originally,  a  complaint  was  lodged  by  the  de-facto<br \/>\ncomplainant  before  the  respondent  police, and since no action was taken by<br \/>\nthem, a private complaint was lodged before the concerned Magistrate, and  the<br \/>\nlearned  Magistrate  forwarded the said complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.<br \/>\nto the respondent police.  Pursuant to the same, a case came to be  registered<br \/>\nby  the  respondent  police  in Crime No.6 of 2004 for the offences punishable<br \/>\nunder Sections 498(A), 344, 294(B), 506(2) IPC and under Section  4  of  Dowry<br \/>\nProhibition Act against the four accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.Admittedly,  the  marriage  between the de-facto complainant<br \/>\nand the first petitioner  took  place  on  5.11.2003,  and  they  were  living<br \/>\ntogether for a short while.  Following the same, a complaint was lodged before<br \/>\nthe  concerned  Court  on  9.3.2004,  as  a result of which, a case came to be<br \/>\nregistered in Crime No.6  of  2004  by  All  Women  Police  Station,  Ranipet.<br \/>\nInvestigation was taken up by the respondent police, and charge sheet was also<br \/>\nlaid  in  C.C.No.206 of 2004 under Sections 498(A) IPC, 4 of Dowry Prohibition<br \/>\nAct, 343,294(b), 506(i) IPC read with 34  \/1145  IPC,  and  now  it  is  under<br \/>\nchallenge in this Criminal Original Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.   Petitioners, originally filed a Criminal Revision Case in<br \/>\nCrl.R.C.No.1650 of 2004 challenging the impugned  order  of  the  lower  Court<br \/>\ntaking cognizance  of the case.  Subsequently it was withdrawn since it is not<br \/>\nmaintainable.  Now the petitioners have brought forth this petition  to  quash<br \/>\nthe proceedings before the lower court.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the petitioners inter-alia<br \/>\nwould submit that the marriage between the first petitioner and  the  de-facto<br \/>\ncomplainant took  place on 5.11.2003.  But the marriage was never consummated.<br \/>\nSince the first petitioner found that there was a lack of cooperation from the<br \/>\nspouse and the marriage did not fructify in the true sense, he approached  the<br \/>\nfamily  Court  for  nullity  of marriage under Section 12(1)(a) and (c) of the<br \/>\nHindu Marriage Act.  On service of summons on 1.2.2004, from the Family Court,<br \/>\nas a counter-blast, the de-facto complainant lodged the instant  complaint  on<br \/>\n9.2.2004  with all false, frivolous and vexatious allegations, as if there was<br \/>\na demand of dowry, wrongful confinement, abuse of filthy language etc.   After<br \/>\nregistration   of   the  case,  the  police  agency  have  not  taken  up  the<br \/>\ninvestigation in a fair manner, but with lopsided  and  it  was  done  in  the<br \/>\ninterest of  the de-facto complainant.  Before the lower Court, an application<br \/>\nwas filed stating that the investigation was not properly done  and  that  the<br \/>\nfirst petitioner was only interrogated and not others and though the documents<br \/>\nwere  handed over to the police agency at the time of investigation, they were<br \/>\nnot produced along with the case papers before the lower Court.  But,there was<br \/>\na denial on the part of the Inspector of Police, in his affidavit  as  to  the<br \/>\nreceipt of  the  said documents and that they are not in their custody.  Added<br \/>\nfurther, learned counsel for the petitioner relying  on  Rule  566  of  Police<br \/>\nStanding   Orders   that   the  investigating  officer  should  carry  on  the<br \/>\ninvestigation in an impartial manner and this particular Standing Orders  give<br \/>\nwarning  to  the Investigating officer who is entrusted with the investigation<br \/>\nand as to the facts, a duty is cast upon the police officer to  find  out  the<br \/>\ntruth,  and  to  achieve the purpose, it is necessary to preserve an open mind<br \/>\nthroughout the inquiry.  But in the instant case, it was not done so.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.The first petitioner herein was residing in Saligramam  with<br \/>\nother  members  of  the  family  where  he  was given police personnel for his<br \/>\nsecurity purposes.  The illegal confinement, dowry harassment, etc have  taken<br \/>\nplace,  according to the complainant, at the house of the second respondent at<br \/>\nSaligramam.  No one of the police  personnel  attached  was  examined  by  the<br \/>\ninvestigating officer.    It  is  needless  to state that the Police personnel<br \/>\nattached to the security office, have to be examined  to  come  out  with  the<br \/>\ntruth  that  no occurrence has been taken place in the residence of the second<br \/>\npetitioner.  The last contention put forth by  the  learned  counsel  for  the<br \/>\npetitioner  is  that  the  investigation  was  done by the inspector of police<br \/>\nattached to the Women Police Station.  But it should have been  done  only  by<br \/>\nthe Deputy Superintendent of Police.  He also took the Court to the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nDowry Prohibition Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as &#8216;the Rules&#8217;) wherein<br \/>\nthe  police  officer  is  defined  as &#8220;Deputy Superintendent of Police&#8221; of the<br \/>\nDivision concerned.  Thus, the investigation should  have  been  done  in  the<br \/>\nsense  that  after  registering  the  case,  under the Rule, the investigation<br \/>\nshould have been taken by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and that a  case<br \/>\nhas to  be registered in the light of the said Rules.  Thus, the investigation<br \/>\nof the case should have been taken by the Deputy Superintendent of Police  who<br \/>\nis defined as Police officer in the said Rules and in the instant case, it has<br \/>\naffected the  entire  investigation.  Under the circumstances, the case before<br \/>\nthe lower court has got to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.Contrary to the above contentions, learned Public prosecutor<br \/>\nappearing for the State would submit that it is true that the Tamil Nadu Dowry<br \/>\nProhibition Rules, 2004 defines the police officer as Deputy Superintendent of<br \/>\nPolice of the Division concerned.  But, nowhere it prohibits  any  officer  in<br \/>\nthe  rank of Inspector of Police to conduct the investigation and it is only a<br \/>\nsubordinate legislation and it cannot over ride what is found  in  the  Act  .<br \/>\nLearned Public Prosecutor would further add that it has been clearly mentioned<br \/>\nin  5(xviii)of  the  said  rules  that  the  marriages  performed  within  his<br \/>\njurisdiction are likely to be visited by him  or  his  staff  along  with  the<br \/>\npolice officers  .    Therefore, for this action, the visit becomes necessary.<br \/>\nThe rule would not contemplate that the investigation should be  done  by  the<br \/>\nDeputy Superintendent of Police and not by any one in the rank of Inspector of<br \/>\nPolice for the purpose of investigation and in so far as the other contentions<br \/>\nare  concerned,  he would state that the factual positions as submitted by the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the petitioners shall be put forth before the lower  Court<br \/>\nby  adducing evidence and not by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under<br \/>\nSection 482 Cr.P.C.  and hence this criminal Original petition has got  to  be<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.After  careful consideration of the rival submissions, this<br \/>\nCourt is of the considered opinion that the Criminal Original Petition has  no<br \/>\nmerit.   Admittedly, a complaint was lodged by the de-facto complainant before<br \/>\nthe concerned Magistrate Court and the same was  forwarded  to  the  concerned<br \/>\npolice under  Section  156(3)  Cr.P.C.    and  a  case  came to be registered,<br \/>\ninvestigation was done and now the charge sheet was filed and taken cognizance<br \/>\nby the lower Court in C.C.No.206 of 200 4.\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.   The contentions now put forth by the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe petitioners is that the investigation was not done in  a  free  mind,  but<br \/>\nlopsided  and  the  rules of the Police Standing orders have not been strictly<br \/>\nfollowed.  This could be gone into only at the time of trial and not  at  this<br \/>\nstage by filing a quash petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.  An opportunity has<br \/>\nto  be  given  for the defence to put forward all the questions at the time of<br \/>\ncross examination of the concerned officer.  Apart from that, it is  the  duty<br \/>\nof  the  prosecution  to show that fair investigation was conducted and it has<br \/>\ngot to be appreciated by the Court concerned only at the time  of  trial,  and<br \/>\nthe  matter  has  got  to be disposed of by the trial Court on appreciation of<br \/>\nevidence, on merits and in accordance with law.  This Court at  this  juncture<br \/>\ncannot  go into or investigate into whether the investigation was done with an<br \/>\nopen mind or otherwise.  The further contention of the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioners that the investigation should have been done only  by  the  Deputy<br \/>\nSuperintendent  of Police who is defined as police officer under the Rules and<br \/>\nnot by the Inspector of Police,  cannot  be  countenanced.    The  Rule  is  a<br \/>\nsubordinate  legislation  and the provisions under the Criminal Procedure Code<br \/>\ngive full power on the Inspector of Police to  proceed  with  the  matter  and<br \/>\napart  from  that,  the  definition for Police officer would clearly reveal as<br \/>\nsubmitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that nowhere there is a prohibition<br \/>\nthat below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police shall not exercise  the<br \/>\npower  to investigate the case and hence the contention of the learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the petitioners in this regard cannot be  countenanced.    However,  there<br \/>\ncannot be any impediment to raise all the contentions put forth by the learned<br \/>\ncounsel  for the petitioners before this Court and recorded above, at the time<br \/>\nof examination of witnesses and also adducing evidence before the lower Court.<br \/>\nIt can be well stated that there is no impediment in law for  the  petitioners<br \/>\nto  avail  the opportunity before the lower Court by filing an application for<br \/>\ndischarge.  The above contentions also have to be gone in to only by the lower<br \/>\nCourt at the time of disposal of the application for discharge and not by  way<br \/>\nof 482 Cr.P.C.  like this.\n<\/p>\n<p>                12.It is brought to the notice of the Court  that  the  second<br \/>\npetitioner  is  a retired District Judge and presently a Member of State Human<br \/>\nRights Commission and the fourth petitioner is a practising advocate.   Hence,<br \/>\nthe  personal  appearance of 2nd and 4th petitioners before the lower court is<br \/>\ndispensed with, except on the dates necessary in  the  opinion  of  the  lower<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>                13.With  this  observation,  the Criminal Original Petition is<br \/>\ndismissed.  Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.10462 of 2004 and 544 of  2005  are  also<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet :  Yes<\/p>\n<p>VJY <\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.Judicial Magistrate II,<br \/>\nWalajapet.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.Inspector of Police<br \/>\nAll Women Police Station,<br \/>\nRanipet.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\nMadras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court S.Subramanian @ Senthil vs State Rep. By on 22 February, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 22\/02\/2005 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice M.CHOCKALINGAM Crl.OP.No. 32871 of 2004 and CRL.M.P.NO.10462 OF 2004 AND 544 OF 2005 1.S.Subramanian @ Senthil 2.S.Sambandam 3.S.Bakialakshmi 4.S.Rajaram &#8230;Petitioners -vs- State rep. by the Inspector of [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-51242","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>S.Subramanian @ Senthil vs State Rep. By on 22 February, 2005 - 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\/s-subramanian-senthil-vs-state-rep-by-on-22-february-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Subramanian @ Senthil vs State Rep. By on 22 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-subramanian-senthil-vs-state-rep-by-on-22-february-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-08T08:39:05+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-subramanian-senthil-vs-state-rep-by-on-22-february-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-subramanian-senthil-vs-state-rep-by-on-22-february-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Subramanian @ Senthil vs State Rep. By on 22 February, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-08T08:39:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-subramanian-senthil-vs-state-rep-by-on-22-february-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1806,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-subramanian-senthil-vs-state-rep-by-on-22-february-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-subramanian-senthil-vs-state-rep-by-on-22-february-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-subramanian-senthil-vs-state-rep-by-on-22-february-2005\",\"name\":\"S.Subramanian @ Senthil vs State Rep. By on 22 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-08T08:39:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-subramanian-senthil-vs-state-rep-by-on-22-february-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-subramanian-senthil-vs-state-rep-by-on-22-february-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-subramanian-senthil-vs-state-rep-by-on-22-february-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Subramanian @ Senthil vs State Rep. By on 22 February, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"S.Subramanian @ Senthil vs State Rep. By on 22 February, 2005 - 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\/s-subramanian-senthil-vs-state-rep-by-on-22-february-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Subramanian @ Senthil vs State Rep. By on 22 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-subramanian-senthil-vs-state-rep-by-on-22-february-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-08T08:39:05+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-subramanian-senthil-vs-state-rep-by-on-22-february-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-subramanian-senthil-vs-state-rep-by-on-22-february-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Subramanian @ Senthil vs State Rep. By on 22 February, 2005","datePublished":"2005-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-08T08:39:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-subramanian-senthil-vs-state-rep-by-on-22-february-2005"},"wordCount":1806,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-subramanian-senthil-vs-state-rep-by-on-22-february-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-subramanian-senthil-vs-state-rep-by-on-22-february-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-subramanian-senthil-vs-state-rep-by-on-22-february-2005","name":"S.Subramanian @ Senthil vs State Rep. By on 22 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-08T08:39:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-subramanian-senthil-vs-state-rep-by-on-22-february-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-subramanian-senthil-vs-state-rep-by-on-22-february-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-subramanian-senthil-vs-state-rep-by-on-22-february-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Subramanian @ Senthil vs State Rep. By on 22 February, 2005"}]},{"@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\/51242","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=51242"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51242\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51242"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=51242"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=51242"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}