{"id":52665,"date":"2009-03-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baby-m-p-vs-state-of-kerala-rep-by-on-5-march-2009"},"modified":"2016-12-15T02:56:33","modified_gmt":"2016-12-14T21:26:33","slug":"baby-m-p-vs-state-of-kerala-rep-by-on-5-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baby-m-p-vs-state-of-kerala-rep-by-on-5-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Baby M.P. vs State Of Kerala – Rep. By on 5 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Baby M.P. vs State Of Kerala – Rep. By on 5 March, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.MC.No. 1113 of 2006()\n\n\n1. BABY M.P., SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA - REP. BY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. SOOPY, S\/O. KUNHAMMED,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI\n\n Dated :05\/03\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                        M.C.HARI RANI, J.\n        -----------------------------------------------------\n                 CRL.M.C.No.1113 OF 2006\n      -----------------------------------------------------\n      DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF MARCH, 2009\n\n                             O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
      The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.6\/04 on the file<\/p>\n
of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Vadakara. This<\/p>\n
petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the<\/p>\n
complaint, Annexure-IV and all further proceedings against the<\/p>\n
petitioner. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under<\/p>\n
Sections 342 and 323 of IPC, which was taken cognizance by the<\/p>\n
learned Magistrate on the basis of the oral complaint made by the<\/p>\n
2nd respondent herein, when he was produced before the learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate after arrest in Crime No.572\/03 of Vadakara Police<\/p>\n
Station as per Annexure-I FIR. Annexure II is the search list.<\/p>\n
Annexure III is the remand report. The allegation against the<\/p>\n
petitioner is that while he arrested the 2nd respondent during<\/p>\n
investigation of Crime No.572\/03 of Vadakara Police Station on<\/p>\n
25.9.2003, he manhandled the 2nd respondent as disclosed to the<\/p>\n
Magistrate, which was recorded in Annexure IV.          The learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate after 202 enquiry and after recording the sworn<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.No.1113\/06                     -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
statement of the second respondent and three other witnesses took<\/p>\n
cognizance of the case against the petitioner, which is pending before<\/p>\n
the Court of J.F.C.M., Vadakara as C.C.No.6\/04.            The second<\/p>\n
respondent has also filed a complaint with the same allegations before<\/p>\n
the Deputy Superintendent of Police as well as before the DIG of<\/p>\n
Police, who conducted Departmental Enquiry and the petitioner was<\/p>\n
exonerated as per Annexure VI order. It is alleged in this petition that<\/p>\n
before taking cognizance of the case against the petitioner, sanction<\/p>\n
under Section 197 Cr.P.C. has not been obtained and no offence as<\/p>\n
alleged is made out against the petitioner and by invoking the<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482     of Cr.P.C., the entire<\/p>\n
proceedings in C.C.No.6\/2004 on the file of Court of J.F.C.M., Vadakara<\/p>\n
be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
      2.   Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and<\/p>\n
the 2nd respondent. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.<\/p>\n
      3.   It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
petitioner that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged<\/p>\n
in Annexure IV complaint and that he was on official duty and arrested<\/p>\n
the second respondent on 1.10.2003 in Crime No.572\/03 of Vadakara<\/p>\n
Police Station in respect of an offence under Section 402 of IPC<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.No.1113\/06                      -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
registered against the 2nd respondent and four others. True copy of<\/p>\n
the FIR is produced as Annexure I. After arrest, the 2nd respondent<\/p>\n
was produced before the learned Magistrate on the same day at 8PM,<\/p>\n
as revealed from the remand report Annexure III. According to the<\/p>\n
learned counsel, the petitioner has complied with all the formalities<\/p>\n
while arresting the 2nd respondent and this petition is not maintainable<\/p>\n
for the reason that sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. has not been<\/p>\n
obtained before prosecuting the petitioner, who is admittedly the Sub<\/p>\n
Inspector of Police, Vadakara and was on official duty and arrested the<\/p>\n
2nd respondent in Crime No.572\/03.          Thus, it is the case of the<\/p>\n
petitioner that no sanction has been obtained under Section 197(1)<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. to prosecute him and therefore the cognizance taken by the<\/p>\n
learned Magistrate is unsustainable in law, as it violates the mandate<\/p>\n
of Section 197(3) Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that<\/p>\n
the complaint of the 2nd respondent as revealed from Annexure IV is<\/p>\n
regarding custodial assault and manhandling and the alleged overt acts<\/p>\n
against the complainant cannot be said to be the acts done in the<\/p>\n
discharge of his official duty or in the purported discharge of his official<\/p>\n
duty.\n<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.No.1113\/06                     -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
      5.    It cannot be disputed that the second respondent was<\/p>\n
arrested by the petitioner herein, who is the accused in Crime<\/p>\n
No.572\/03. The offence alleged against the second respondent was<\/p>\n
under Section 402 of IPC. Thus, it is clear that on 1.10.2003, the<\/p>\n
petitioner had taken custody of the 2nd respondent in discharge of his<\/p>\n
official duty as the Sub Inspector of Police, Vadakara Police Station,<\/p>\n
during investigation of Crime No.572\/2003. Even if the allegation of<\/p>\n
the second respondent that the petitioner as the Sub Inspector of<\/p>\n
Police, physically manhandled and assaulted him and the offence as<\/p>\n
alleged in Annexure IV complaint is accepted, it is clear that it was<\/p>\n
done in discharge of his official duties, as the Sub Inspector of Police.<\/p>\n
If those allegations are true and he had exceeded the limit, the<\/p>\n
question is whether in such a case, sanction is necessary and whether<\/p>\n
the act alleged can be said to be committed in the discharge of his<\/p>\n
official duties or in the purported discharge of his official duties. The<\/p>\n
real test to be employed      is considered in detail in para-15 of the<\/p>\n
decision in Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh v. Jammal Patel<\/a>(2001<\/p>\n
(2)K.L.T. S.N.77(Case No.98) (SC)= AIR 2001 SC 2198) in the<\/p>\n
following words:\n<\/p>\n
            “The real test to be applied to attract the<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.No.1113\/06                     -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
          applicability of S.197(3) is whether the act which<\/p>\n
          is done by a public officer and is alleged to<\/p>\n
          constitute an offence was done by the public<\/p>\n
          officer whilst acting in his official capacity though<\/p>\n
          what he did was neither his duty nor his right to<\/p>\n
          do as such public officer. The act complained of<\/p>\n
          may be in exercise of the duty or in the absence<\/p>\n
          of such duty or in dereliction of the duty, if the<\/p>\n
          act complained of is done while acting as the<\/p>\n
          public officer and in the course of the same<\/p>\n
          transaction in which        the official duty was<\/p>\n
          performed or purports to be performed, the<\/p>\n
          public officer would be protected.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    That test has been referred to with approval by the<\/p>\n
    Supreme Court in the latest decision on this aspect in<\/p>\n
    Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das (AIR<\/a> 2006 SC 1599)”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6. The protection given under Section 197 is to protect<\/p>\n
responsible public servant against the institution of possibly vexatious<\/p>\n
criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by<\/p>\n
them while they are acting or purporting to act as public servants.<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.No.1113\/06                     -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
This protection has certain limits and is available only when the alleged<\/p>\n
act done by the public servants reasonably connected with the<\/p>\n
discharge of his official duty. If in doing his official duty, he acted in<\/p>\n
excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the<\/p>\n
act and the performance of the official duty, the excess will not be a<\/p>\n
sufficient ground to deprive the public servant from the protection.<\/p>\n
But the protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. to be invoked, it must<\/p>\n
be shown that the official concerned was accused of an offence alleged<\/p>\n
to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in<\/p>\n
the discharge of his official duty. One safe and sure test in this regard<\/p>\n
would be considered if the omission or neglect on the part of the<\/p>\n
public servant to commit the act complained of could have made him<\/p>\n
answerable for a charge of dereliction      of his official duty.  If the<\/p>\n
answer to this question is in the affirmative, it may be said that such<\/p>\n
act was committed by the public servant while acting in the discharge<\/p>\n
of his official duty and there was      every connection with the     act<\/p>\n
complained of and the official duty of the public servant.<\/p>\n
      7.   The question of exercise of the inherent power of the court<\/p>\n
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure to quash the<\/p>\n
proceedings taken in violation of the mandatory provisions of S.197(1)<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.No.1113\/06                     -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
of Cr.P.C.was considered by the Apex Court in State of Orissa v.<\/p>\n
Ganesh Chandra Jew, A.I.R.<\/a> 2004 SC 2179, the Apex Court held:<\/p>\n
     ” The mandatory character of the protection afforded to a<\/p>\n
     public servant is brought out by the expression, “no Court<\/p>\n
     shall take cognizance of such offence except with the<\/p>\n
     previous sanction”. Use of the words, ‘no’ and ‘shall’ make<\/p>\n
     it abundantly clear that the bar on the exercise of power by<\/p>\n
     the Court to take cognizance of any offence is absolute<\/p>\n
     and complete.      Very cognizance is barred.     That is the<\/p>\n
     complaint, cannot be taken notice of. According to Black’s<\/p>\n
     Law Dictionary the word ‘cognizance’ means “jurisdiction” or<\/p>\n
     the “exercise of jurisdiction” or “power to try and determine<\/p>\n
     causes”. In common parlance it means taking notice of. A<\/p>\n
     court, therefore, is precluded from entertaining a complaint<\/p>\n
     or taking notice of it or exercising jurisdiction if it is in<\/p>\n
     respect of a public servant who is accused of an offence<\/p>\n
     alleged to have committed during discharge of his official<\/p>\n
     duty.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     8.    The petitioner herein is the Sub Inspector of Police and the<\/p>\n
alleged offence was committed in discharge of his official duties. As<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.No.1113\/06                     -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
declared by the Apex Court in a catena of cases, the protection<\/p>\n
afforded by S.197 would be rendered illusory if the words “any offence<\/p>\n
alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to<\/p>\n
act on the discharge of his official duty” is given a narrow meaning.<\/p>\n
In that case, the section will be rendered sterile. Official duty implies<\/p>\n
that the act or omission must have been done by him, in the course of<\/p>\n
his service and in discharge of his duty. Once any act or omission has<\/p>\n
been found to have been committed by a public servant in discharge of<\/p>\n
his duty, then it must be given liberal and wide construction so as to<\/p>\n
advance the object of the section in favour of the public servant. In<\/p>\n
this case it is evident that petitioner had taken the 2nd respondent in<\/p>\n
custody in the discharge of his official duties as is clear from the<\/p>\n
complaint and the allegations specified therein. Therefore, in view of<\/p>\n
notification dated 6.12.1977 issued by the State Government which<\/p>\n
was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Sarojini v.<\/p>\n
Prasannan, (1996(2)K.L.T.859), it can only be held that the<\/p>\n
petitioner, Sub Inspector of Police is an officer against whom sanction<\/p>\n
as provided under Section 197(1)of Cr.P.C.is mandatory. The learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate omitted to take into consideration all these facts and taken<\/p>\n
cognizance of the case against the petitioner. Therefore, cognizance<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.No.1113\/06                      -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
was taken without sanction and the continuation of the proceedings as<\/p>\n
against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of court.<\/p>\n
     9.    It is also held by the Apex Court in Sankaran Moitra v.<\/p>\n
Sadhna Das and Another<\/a> [2006(2) SCC (Cri).358] that<\/p>\n
postponing a decision on the applicability or otherwise of Section 197<\/p>\n
(1) of the Code can only lead to the proceedings being dragged on in<\/p>\n
the trial court and a decision by this Court, here and now, would be<\/p>\n
more appropriate in the circumstances of the case especially when the<\/p>\n
accused involved are police personnel and the nature of the complaint<\/p>\n
made is kept in mind.\n<\/p>\n
     10. In the circumstances, by exercising the power under section<\/p>\n
482 of Cr.P.C., case against the petitioner in C.C.No.6\/04 on the file of<\/p>\n
J.F.C.M., Vadakara is quashed. This will not prejudice the rights of the<\/p>\n
2nd respondent-complainant to initiate steps to prosecute the accused<\/p>\n
person after obtaining the requisite sanction.\n<\/p>\n
     In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                        M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
dsn<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Baby M.P. vs State Of Kerala – Rep. By on 5 March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 1113 of 2006() 1. BABY M.P., SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA – REP. BY … Respondent 2. SOOPY, S\/O. KUNHAMMED, For Petitioner :SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.) […]<\/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-52665","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBaby M.P. vs State Of Kerala - Rep. By on 5 March, 2009 - 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\/baby-m-p-vs-state-of-kerala-rep-by-on-5-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Baby M.P. vs State Of Kerala - Rep. By on 5 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baby-m-p-vs-state-of-kerala-rep-by-on-5-march-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-03-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-14T21:26:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baby-m-p-vs-state-of-kerala-rep-by-on-5-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baby-m-p-vs-state-of-kerala-rep-by-on-5-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Baby M.P. vs State Of Kerala – Rep. By on 5 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-14T21:26:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baby-m-p-vs-state-of-kerala-rep-by-on-5-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1910,\"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\\\/baby-m-p-vs-state-of-kerala-rep-by-on-5-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baby-m-p-vs-state-of-kerala-rep-by-on-5-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baby-m-p-vs-state-of-kerala-rep-by-on-5-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Baby M.P. vs State Of Kerala - Rep. By on 5 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-14T21:26:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baby-m-p-vs-state-of-kerala-rep-by-on-5-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baby-m-p-vs-state-of-kerala-rep-by-on-5-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baby-m-p-vs-state-of-kerala-rep-by-on-5-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Baby M.P. vs State Of Kerala – Rep. By on 5 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Baby M.P. vs State Of Kerala - Rep. By on 5 March, 2009 - 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\/baby-m-p-vs-state-of-kerala-rep-by-on-5-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Baby M.P. vs State Of Kerala - Rep. By on 5 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baby-m-p-vs-state-of-kerala-rep-by-on-5-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-14T21:26:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baby-m-p-vs-state-of-kerala-rep-by-on-5-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baby-m-p-vs-state-of-kerala-rep-by-on-5-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Baby M.P. vs State Of Kerala – Rep. By on 5 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-14T21:26:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baby-m-p-vs-state-of-kerala-rep-by-on-5-march-2009"},"wordCount":1910,"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\/baby-m-p-vs-state-of-kerala-rep-by-on-5-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baby-m-p-vs-state-of-kerala-rep-by-on-5-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baby-m-p-vs-state-of-kerala-rep-by-on-5-march-2009","name":"Baby M.P. vs State Of Kerala - Rep. By on 5 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-14T21:26:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baby-m-p-vs-state-of-kerala-rep-by-on-5-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baby-m-p-vs-state-of-kerala-rep-by-on-5-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baby-m-p-vs-state-of-kerala-rep-by-on-5-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Baby M.P. vs State Of Kerala – Rep. By on 5 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:\/\/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\/52665","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=52665"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52665\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52665"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52665"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52665"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}