{"id":57020,"date":"2006-10-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-10-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-vijayakumar-vs-muraleedharan-on-19-october-2006"},"modified":"2015-02-12T16:58:13","modified_gmt":"2015-02-12T11:28:13","slug":"p-n-vijayakumar-vs-muraleedharan-on-19-october-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-vijayakumar-vs-muraleedharan-on-19-october-2006","title":{"rendered":"P.N.Vijayakumar vs Muraleedharan on 19 October, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
P.N.Vijayakumar vs Muraleedharan on 19 October, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 401 of 2004(B)\n\n\n1. P.N.VIJAYAKUMAR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. MURALEEDHARAN, S\/O. SANKARAN NAIR,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.R.SURENDRAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA\n\n Dated :19\/10\/2006\n\n O R D E R\n                            K.HEMA, J.\n            -----------------------------------------------\n                Crl. Appeal No.401 of 2004\n            -----------------------------------------------\n        Dated this the 19th day of October, 2006.\n\n                         J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
          This appeal is filed against an order of acquittal.<\/p>\n
          2.   The appellant filed a complaint against first<\/p>\n
respondent     alleging offence under Section 138 of the<\/p>\n
Negotiable Instruments Act.        As per the allegations in the<\/p>\n
complaint, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000\/- on<\/p>\n
29.5.2000 from the complainant, assuring to repay the said<\/p>\n
amount within one week. When the complainant demanded the<\/p>\n
money back, the accused issued cheque (Ext.P1) dated<\/p>\n
5.6.2002 for Rs.1,50,000\/-.       The complainant presented the<\/p>\n
cheque in the bank but it was returned with endorsement “full<\/p>\n
cover not received” as per Ext.P2 memo. A lawyer notice was<\/p>\n
issued but no reply was sent nor any amount was paid to the<\/p>\n
accused.    A complaint was hence filed against the first<\/p>\n
respondent     alleging offence under Section 138 of the<\/p>\n
Negotiable Instruments Act.\n<\/p>\n
          3. To prove the prosecution case, the complainant<\/p>\n
examined himself as PW1.         He marked Exts.P1 to P4.     The<\/p>\n
accused adduced defence evidence.               DWs.1 and 2 were<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.401\/2004           2<\/span><\/p>\n
examined and Exts.D1 to D20 were marked on his side. After<\/p>\n
analysing the evidence adduced in this case, the trial court<\/p>\n
found that Ext.P1 is not the cheque entrusted by the accused<\/p>\n
with the complainant but it was given by the accused to one<\/p>\n
Pankajakshan. The trial court found that the case set up by the<\/p>\n
complainant is absolutely false. The court below also found that<\/p>\n
the cheque handed over to one Pankajakshan was manipulated<\/p>\n
and a complaint was filed through the nephew. It was also held<\/p>\n
that there is no money transaction between the complainant<\/p>\n
and the accused. The above findings are under challenge in<\/p>\n
this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
             4. While the appellant contended that the accused<\/p>\n
borrowed Rs.1,50,000\/- from the complainant on 29.5.2002 and<\/p>\n
for the discharge of the said debt he issued Ext.P1 cheque,<\/p>\n
accused raised a plea that he did not draw the cheque Ext.P1,<\/p>\n
but it was a signed blank cheque given to the complainant’s<\/p>\n
uncle as security in connection with transaction between<\/p>\n
himself and one Pankajakshan.\n<\/p>\n
             5. The evidence of PW1 reveals that he is doing<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.401\/2004             3<\/span><\/p>\n
business (the details of the business are not stated by him) and<\/p>\n
he is having an income of Rs.4,000\/-. The amount allegedly<\/p>\n
given as loan to the accused is Rs.1,50,000\/-. His case is that<\/p>\n
he paid the amount immediately on the request made by the<\/p>\n
accused.     According to him, the amount was for purchasing<\/p>\n
plantain kept by him. It has come out from his evidence that he<\/p>\n
did not receive any document before giving the amount to the<\/p>\n
accused.\n<\/p>\n
             6.     It is not in evidence that accused and<\/p>\n
complainant are close friends or relatives so as to persuade him<\/p>\n
to give such huge amount immediately on a mere request that<\/p>\n
too, on his way to purchase plantains even without taking any<\/p>\n
document to support payment. The evidence given by PW1<\/p>\n
regarding the circumstances under which he paid the amount is<\/p>\n
highly improbable.\n<\/p>\n
             7. In this connection, learned counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
first respondent pointed out that, as per the Income Tax Act, a<\/p>\n
person is supposed to give amount more than Rs.20,000\/- at<\/p>\n
the relevant time only by way of cheque. This has not been<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.401\/2004         4<\/span><\/p>\n
done by the complainant. It is also submitted that it is highly<\/p>\n
improbable that he would give the amount even without the<\/p>\n
support of any documentary evidence or without the presence<\/p>\n
of a witness.\n<\/p>\n
             8. The case of the accused is that he had some<\/p>\n
transaction with the complainant’s uncle who was a money<\/p>\n
lender.        The    accused borrowed   Rs.1,00,000\/-    from<\/p>\n
Pankajakshan, the complainant’s uncle in the year 1996 for<\/p>\n
interest, but subsequently the said person was insisting to<\/p>\n
repay the amount with huge interest and he had to sell the<\/p>\n
property belonging to his mother, wife and himself in favour of<\/p>\n
the said Pankajakshan. He was forced to deposit certain huge<\/p>\n
amounts which he had received from KSFE in the name of<\/p>\n
Pankajakshan’s wife and his son. But, not being satisfied with<\/p>\n
this, the said Pankajakshan has taken away his motor bike by<\/p>\n
force and at this juncture he had met DW2, a Panchayat<\/p>\n
Member to interfere and settle the issue. Under the mediation<\/p>\n
of DW2 and others, the said Pankajakshan agreed to return four<\/p>\n
blank cheques which were handed over by the accused to him<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.401\/2004           5<\/span><\/p>\n
under various circumstances.     He also agreed to return the<\/p>\n
motor bike to the accused.\n<\/p>\n
             9.   Pursuant to the settlement so arrived at, an<\/p>\n
agreement was executed by the said Pankajakshan in the<\/p>\n
presence of DW2 and the said agreement is Ext.D5. To prove<\/p>\n
the above contentions, accused produced as many as 20<\/p>\n
documents and the genuineness of these documents are not<\/p>\n
under dispute.        DW2 was also examined to prove the<\/p>\n
settlement, agreement, etc. as alleged by accused.       DW2<\/p>\n
deposed that Ext.D5 was written in his own handwriting and he<\/p>\n
had signed in the same. He also deposed that there was a<\/p>\n
mediation talk between the accused and Pankajakshan and the<\/p>\n
agreement was also executed pursuant to the said settlement<\/p>\n
talk and he had signed in the same.\n<\/p>\n
             10. DW2 also stated that Pankajakshan agreed to<\/p>\n
return the four blank cheques mentioned in Ext.D5, which were<\/p>\n
handed over by accused to him as security for repayment of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,00,000\/-      and  interest. Ext.D5   also  shows    that<\/p>\n
Pankajakshan agreed to return the blank cheque and also<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.401\/2004           6<\/span><\/p>\n
signed stamp papers dated 25.8.2000.        The number of the<\/p>\n
cheques, the account number etc. are all shown in Ext.D5.<\/p>\n
DW1 deposed that Ext.P1 is the cheque signed by him and<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 is one of such cheques taken by Pankajakshan. The<\/p>\n
evidence of DWs.1 and 2 coupled with Ext.D5 will show that<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 was a blank cheque handed over by the accused to<\/p>\n
Pankajakshan       which was    agreed   to   be   returned  by<\/p>\n
Pankajakshan to the accused as per Ext.D5 dated 1.5.2002.<\/p>\n
There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the evidence of DW1<\/p>\n
and DW2 and Ext.D5.\n<\/p>\n
             11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant<\/p>\n
would strenuously argue that Ext.D5 cannot be accepted, which<\/p>\n
has been brought out at highly belated stage in the defence<\/p>\n
evidence. It was argued that the document was not produced<\/p>\n
before the court prior to the stage of defence evidence. It was<\/p>\n
not confronted with PW1 during cross-examination, it is<\/p>\n
submitted. The accused did not send any reply to the lawyer<\/p>\n
notice issued at the instance of the complainant etc. But, on<\/p>\n
going through the evidence of DW1, DW2 and Ext.D5, I do not<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.401\/2004          7<\/span><\/p>\n
find that any of these reasons would stand in the way of acting<\/p>\n
upon Ext.D5.\n<\/p>\n
             12. PW1 deposed in court that accused “gave” a<\/p>\n
cheque to him. In the complaint he stated that the accused<\/p>\n
“issued” the cheque. It is only in cross-examination that PW1<\/p>\n
stated that the accused had signed the cheque from his room.<\/p>\n
His case is that the cheque was given at Kalpetta and that it<\/p>\n
was a typed cheque. It appears from PW1’s evidence that the<\/p>\n
accused had promised to repay the amount within one week<\/p>\n
and on 5.2.2002 the complainant demanded payment of the<\/p>\n
amount, while he incidentally met the accused at Kalpetta away<\/p>\n
from his native place (Kozhikode), where he would have gone in<\/p>\n
connection with his business.    He deposed that nobody had<\/p>\n
seen the accused handing over the cheque to him or signing<\/p>\n
the same.\n<\/p>\n
             13. The appellant’s case is that he used to go to<\/p>\n
Wayanad for business purpose. His case appears to be that on<\/p>\n
one such visit, he asked for the cheque and immediately<\/p>\n
handed over a typed cheque which contained the name of the<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.401\/2004           8<\/span><\/p>\n
complainant as payee.      This evidence is too much to be<\/p>\n
swallowed in the absence of any corroborative evidence. I find<\/p>\n
it unsafe to place any reliance upon the evidence of PW1 to<\/p>\n
hold that the accused gave a typed cheque to the complainant<\/p>\n
and signed the same in his presence. When the evidence of<\/p>\n
PW1 is tested as against the reliable defence evidence it can be<\/p>\n
seen that as on 1.5.2002 the complainant’s uncle was having in<\/p>\n
his possession Ext.P1, which was only a blank cheque at that<\/p>\n
time. As rightly held by the court below, the complainant was<\/p>\n
not giving a correct version regarding drawing of the cheque,<\/p>\n
signing of the cheque etc.<\/p>\n
             14. The complainant failed to prove that the cheque<\/p>\n
was drawn for discharge of any debt or liability. No offence<\/p>\n
under Section 138 of the Act is made out. The court below has<\/p>\n
rightly acquitted the accused.       The proceedings initiated<\/p>\n
against the complainant under Section 250 of the Code also<\/p>\n
cannot be interfered with, since I do not find any ground to do<\/p>\n
so. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that<\/p>\n
the court has not recorded any opinion that there was no<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.401\/2004             9<\/span><\/p>\n
reasonable ground for making accusation against the accused<\/p>\n
and therefore, no proceedings can be initiated against the<\/p>\n
complainant under Section 250 of the Code. I cannot accept<\/p>\n
this argument. The court below has found that PW1 has been<\/p>\n
stating utter falsehood before the court regarding issuance of<\/p>\n
cheque, payment of amount etc. Therefore, it cannot be said<\/p>\n
that the learned Magistrate has not expressed any such<\/p>\n
opinion. It is stated in the judgment itself that the complainant<\/p>\n
approached the court with unclean hands.           There was no<\/p>\n
reasonable cause for making accusation against the accused.<\/p>\n
In such circumstances, there is no ground to interfere with the<\/p>\n
proceedings initiated against the complainant under Section<\/p>\n
250 of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
             This appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                               K.HEMA, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
Krs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court P.N.Vijayakumar vs Muraleedharan on 19 October, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 401 of 2004(B) 1. P.N.VIJAYAKUMAR, … Petitioner Vs 1. MURALEEDHARAN, S\/O. SANKARAN NAIR, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN For Respondent :SRI.R.SURENDRAN The Hon’ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA Dated :19\/10\/2006 O R D E […]<\/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-57020","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.N.Vijayakumar vs Muraleedharan on 19 October, 2006 - 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\/p-n-vijayakumar-vs-muraleedharan-on-19-october-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.N.Vijayakumar vs Muraleedharan on 19 October, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-vijayakumar-vs-muraleedharan-on-19-october-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-12T11:28:13+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-vijayakumar-vs-muraleedharan-on-19-october-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-vijayakumar-vs-muraleedharan-on-19-october-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.N.Vijayakumar vs Muraleedharan on 19 October, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-12T11:28:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-vijayakumar-vs-muraleedharan-on-19-october-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1618,\"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\\\/p-n-vijayakumar-vs-muraleedharan-on-19-october-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-vijayakumar-vs-muraleedharan-on-19-october-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-vijayakumar-vs-muraleedharan-on-19-october-2006\",\"name\":\"P.N.Vijayakumar vs Muraleedharan on 19 October, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-12T11:28:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-vijayakumar-vs-muraleedharan-on-19-october-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-vijayakumar-vs-muraleedharan-on-19-october-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-vijayakumar-vs-muraleedharan-on-19-october-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.N.Vijayakumar vs Muraleedharan on 19 October, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"P.N.Vijayakumar vs Muraleedharan on 19 October, 2006 - 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\/p-n-vijayakumar-vs-muraleedharan-on-19-october-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.N.Vijayakumar vs Muraleedharan on 19 October, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-vijayakumar-vs-muraleedharan-on-19-october-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-12T11:28:13+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-vijayakumar-vs-muraleedharan-on-19-october-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-vijayakumar-vs-muraleedharan-on-19-october-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.N.Vijayakumar vs Muraleedharan on 19 October, 2006","datePublished":"2006-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-12T11:28:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-vijayakumar-vs-muraleedharan-on-19-october-2006"},"wordCount":1618,"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\/p-n-vijayakumar-vs-muraleedharan-on-19-october-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-vijayakumar-vs-muraleedharan-on-19-october-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-vijayakumar-vs-muraleedharan-on-19-october-2006","name":"P.N.Vijayakumar vs Muraleedharan on 19 October, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-12T11:28:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-vijayakumar-vs-muraleedharan-on-19-october-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-vijayakumar-vs-muraleedharan-on-19-october-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-vijayakumar-vs-muraleedharan-on-19-october-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.N.Vijayakumar vs Muraleedharan on 19 October, 2006"}]},{"@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\/57020","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=57020"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57020\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57020"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57020"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57020"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}