{"id":6512,"date":"2010-10-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-ramesh-vs-thangavel-on-6-october-2010"},"modified":"2017-07-22T12:13:32","modified_gmt":"2017-07-22T06:43:32","slug":"k-k-ramesh-vs-thangavel-on-6-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-ramesh-vs-thangavel-on-6-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"K.K.Ramesh vs Thangavel on 6 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K.K.Ramesh vs Thangavel on 6 October, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 06\/10\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nContempt Petition (MD)No.534 of 2010\n\nK.K.Ramesh\t\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nVs\n\nThangavel,\nInspector of Police,\nC1 Thideer Nagar Police Station,\nMadurai.\t\t\t\t\t... Respondent\n\nPrayer\n\nPetition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish\nthe respondent herein for his wilful disobedience of the order passed by this\nCourt in Crl.O.P.No.5022 of 2009 dated 29.06.2010.\n\n!For Petitioner ... Mr.K.K.Ramesh,\n\t\t    Party-in-person\n^For Respondent ... Mr.R.M.Anbunithi\n\t\t    Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)\n\n* * * * *\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis Contempt Petition is focussed to punish the respondent herein for his<br \/>\nwilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.5022 of 2009<br \/>\ndated 29.06.2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The petitioner\/party-in-person is present and the learned Government<br \/>\nAdvocate (Criminal Side) is also present along with the respondent, namely<br \/>\nThangavel, Inspector of Police, C1, Thideer Nagar Police Station, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The nut-shell facts would run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(a) The police earlier registered a case in Cr.No.1761 of 2008 for the<br \/>\noffences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307, 506(2) I.P.C. as against<br \/>\nten persons consequent upon the complaint having been referred to the police by<br \/>\nthe learned Magistrate concerned, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.  The police<br \/>\ninvestigated into the offence and laid the police report invoking Sections 147,<br \/>\n341, 294(b), 506(ii) I.P.C.  The learned Magistrate took it on file and numbered<br \/>\nit as C.C.No.146 of 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b) While so, the defacto complainant, the petitioner herein filed<br \/>\nnecessary petition before the learned Magistrate seeking direction from him for<br \/>\nordering further investigation into the matter.  The learned Magistrate<br \/>\ndismissed that petition.  Whereupon, a Criminal Revision Case was filed and in<br \/>\nthat, this Court remitted the matter to the learned Magistrate and thereupon,<br \/>\nthe learned Magistrate, on 08.01.2010, directed the police to conduct further<br \/>\ninvestigation.  However, the police was inert and hence, the petitioner herein<br \/>\nwas constrained to file Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5022 of 2010 and obtained a direction<br \/>\nfrom this Court on 29.06.2010 and as per which, this Court directed the police<br \/>\nto complete the investigation and file the final report within a period of one<br \/>\nmonth from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, which means that by<br \/>\n09.08.2010, the police ought to have laid the supplementary\/additional charge<br \/>\nsheet.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Being dissatisfied with the procedure adopted by the police, the party-<br \/>\nin-person filed the present Contempt Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The counter affidavit has been filed pleading that owing to busy work<br \/>\nand, law and order problem, the respondent police officer could not complete the<br \/>\ninvestigation and file necessary report within 09.08.2010, but he filed the<br \/>\nfinal report on 06.09.2010 before the learned Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the<br \/>\npolice officer did his best and he cannot be found fault with and that the<br \/>\nrespondent police officer may be exonerated from this contempt proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. Whereas the petitioner\/party-in-person would submit that the charge<br \/>\nsheet filed is not in accordance with law as the police officer only invoked<br \/>\nSections 147, 341, 294(b), 506(ii) I.P.C, leaving major Sections 307 and 148<br \/>\netc.  According to him, the police officer failed to discharge his duty and he<br \/>\nhas not complied with the order of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. At this juncture, I would like to point out that there is apparently<br \/>\ndelay of nearly one month for which the police officer would plead that because<br \/>\nof the law and order problem, he was not in a position to file the charge sheet<br \/>\nwithin the stipulated time.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Taking into account the averments put forth by the police officer, I<br \/>\nwould like to condone the delay.  However, the grievance of the petitioner is<br \/>\nthat the police officer did not search and seize the vehicle concerned in which<br \/>\nthe accused persons came to the place of occurrence and attempted to attack him<br \/>\nand that as an individual, he cannot go and seize the vehicle and only the<br \/>\npolice can do it.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. Furthermore, his case is that even though no physical injury was<br \/>\ninflicted on him by the accused, yet he narrowly escaped from the said brutal<br \/>\nattack levelled as against him by the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. I would like to recollect the following decisions of the Honourable<br \/>\nApex Court:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) <a href=\"\/doc\/49832\/\">Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra<\/a> reported in AIR 1968 SC 117.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) H.S.Bains, v. The State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), reported in<br \/>\nAIR 1980 SUPREME COURT 1883. An excerpt from it, would run thus:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;6. It is seen from the provisions to which we have referred in the<br \/>\npreceding paras that on receipt of a complaint a Magistrate has several courses<br \/>\nopen to him. He may take cognizance of the offence and proceed to record the<br \/>\nstatements of the complainant and the witnesses present under Section 200.<br \/>\nThereafter, if in his opinion there is no sufficient ground for proceeding he<br \/>\nmay dismiss the complaint under Section 203. If in his opinion there is<br \/>\nsufficient ground for proceeding he may issue process under Section 204.<br \/>\nHowever, if he thinks fit, he may postpone the issue of process and either<br \/>\nenquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police<br \/>\nofficer or such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding<br \/>\nwhether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. He may then issue<br \/>\nprocess if in his opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding or dismiss<br \/>\nthe complaint if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. On the other<br \/>\nhand, in the first instance, on receipt of a complaint, the Magistrate may,<br \/>\ninstead of taking cognizance of the offence, order an investigation under<br \/>\nSection 156(3). The police will then investigate and submit a report under<br \/>\nSection 173(1). On receiving the police report the Magistrate may take<br \/>\ncognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) and straight away issue<br \/>\nprocess. This he may do irrespective of the view expressed by the police in<br \/>\ntheir report whether an offence has been made out or not. The police report<br \/>\nunder Section 173 will contain the facts discovered or unearthed by the police<br \/>\nand the conclusions drawn by the police therefrom. The Magistrate is not bound<br \/>\nby the conclusions drawn by the police and he may decide to issue process even<br \/>\nif the police recommend that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding<br \/>\nfurther. The Magistrate after receiving the police report, may, without issuing<br \/>\nprocess or dropping the proceeding decide to take cognizance of the offence on<br \/>\nthe basis of the complaint originally submitted to him and proceed to record the<br \/>\nstatements upon oath of the complainant and the witnesses present under Section<br \/>\n200 of the Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter decide whether to dismiss the<br \/>\ncomplaint or issue process. The mere fact that he had earlier ordered an<br \/>\ninvestigation under Section 156 (3) and received a report under Section 173 will<br \/>\nnot have the effect of total effacement of the complaint and therefore the<br \/>\nMagistrate will not be barred from proceeding under Sections 200, 203 and 204.<br \/>\nThus, a Magistrate who on receipt of a complaint, orders an investigation under<br \/>\nSection 156(3) and receives a police report under Section 173(1), may,<br \/>\nthereafter, do one of three things: (1) he may decide that there is no<br \/>\nsufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action; (2) he may take<br \/>\ncognizance of the offence under Section 190 (1)(b) on the basis of the police<br \/>\nreport and issue process; this he may do without being bound in any manner by<br \/>\nthe conclusion arrived at by the police in their report; (3) he may take<br \/>\ncognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original<br \/>\ncomplaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses<br \/>\nunder Section 200. If he adopts the third alternative, he may hold or direct an<br \/>\ninquiry under Section 202 if he thinks fit. Thereafter he may dismiss the<br \/>\ncomplaint or issue process, as the case may be.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. <a href=\"\/doc\/49832\/\">In Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra, the<\/a> question arose whether a<br \/>\nMagistrate to whom a report under Section 173(1) had been submitted to the<br \/>\neffect that no case had been made out against the accused, could direct the<br \/>\npolice to file a charge-sheet, on his disagreeing with the report submitted by<br \/>\nthe police. This Court held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct<br \/>\nthe police to submit a charge-sheet. It was open to the Magistrate to agree or<br \/>\ndisagree with the police report. If he agreed with the report that there was no<br \/>\ncase made out for issuing process to the accused, he might accept the report and<br \/>\nclose the proceedings. If he came to the conclusion that further investigation<br \/>\nwas necessary he might make an order to that effect under Section 156(3). If<br \/>\nultimately the Magistrate was of the opinion that the fact set out in the police<br \/>\nreport constituted an offence he could take cognizance of the offence,<br \/>\nnotwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police expressed in the report.<br \/>\nWhile expressing the opinion that the Magistrate could take cognizance of the<br \/>\noffence notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police the court observed<br \/>\nthat the Magistrate could take cognizance under &#8220;section 190(1)(c)&#8221;. We do not<br \/>\nhave any doubt that the reference to &#8220;section 190(l)(c)&#8221; was a mistake for<br \/>\n&#8220;section 190(l)(b)&#8221; That appears to be obvious to us. But Shri Kapil Sibal urged<br \/>\nthat the reference was indeed to Section 190(1)(c) since at that time Section<br \/>\n190(1)(c) included the words &#8216;or suspicion&#8221; and the court had apparently taken<br \/>\nthe view that the Magistrate could take cognizance of the offence not under<br \/>\nSection 190(1)(a) as if on a police report but under Section 190(1)(c) as if &#8220;on<br \/>\nsuspicion&#8221;. We do not agree with this submission. Section 190(l)(c) was never<br \/>\nintended to apply to cases where there was a police report under Section 173(1).<br \/>\nWe find it impossible to say that a Magistrate who takes cognizance of an<br \/>\noffence on the basis of the facts disclosed in a police report must be said to<br \/>\nhave taken cognizance of the offence on suspicion and not upon a police report<br \/>\nmerely because the Magistrate and the police arrived at different conclusions<br \/>\nfrom the facts. The Magistrate is not bound by the conclusions arrived at by the<br \/>\npolice even as he is not bound by the conclusions arrived at by the complainant<br \/>\nin a complaint. If a complainant states the relevant facts in his complaint and<br \/>\nalleges that the accused is guilty of an offence under Section 307 of the Indian<br \/>\nPenal Code the Magistrate is not bound by the conclusion of the complainant. He<br \/>\nmay think that the facts disclose an offence under Section 324 of the Indian<br \/>\nPenal Code only and he may take cognizance of an offence under Section 324<br \/>\ninstead of Section 307. Similarly if a police report mentions that half a dozen<br \/>\npersons examined by them claim to be eyewitnesses to a murder but that for<br \/>\nvarious reasons the witnesses could not be believed, the Magistrate is not bound<br \/>\nto accept the opinion of the police regarding the credibility of the witnesses.<br \/>\nHe may prefer to ignore the conclusions of the police regarding the credibility<br \/>\nof the witnesses and take cognizance of the offence. If he does so, it would be<br \/>\non the basis of the statements of the witnesses as revealed by the police<br \/>\nreport. He would be taking cognizance upon the facts disclosed by the police<br \/>\nreport though not on the conclusions arrived at by the police. It could not be<br \/>\nsaid in such a case that he was taking cognizance on suspicion.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. <a href=\"\/doc\/670039\/\">In Tula Ram v. Kishore Singh the Magistrate,<\/a> on receiving a complaint,<br \/>\nordered an investigation under Section 156(3). The police submitted a report<br \/>\nindicating that no case had been made out against the accused. The court,<br \/>\nhowever, recorded the statements of the complainant and the witnesses and issued<br \/>\nprocess against the accused. It was contended that the Magistrate acted without<br \/>\njurisdiction in taking cognizance of the case as if upon a complaint when the<br \/>\npolice had submitted a report that no case had been made out against the<br \/>\naccused. This Court held that the Magistrate acted within his powers and<br \/>\nobserved that the complaint did not get exhausted as soon as the Magistrate<br \/>\nordered an investigation under Section 156(3). We are, therefore, unable to<br \/>\nagree with the submission of Shri Sibal that the Magistrate acted without<br \/>\njurisdiction in taking cognizance of the offence and issuing process to the<br \/>\naccused notwithstanding the fact that the police report was to the effect that<br \/>\nno case had been made out.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii)  <a href=\"\/doc\/670039\/\">TULA RAM V. KISHORE SINGH,<\/a> reported in (1977) 4 SCC 459.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iv) <a href=\"\/doc\/956554\/\">RAM LAL NARANG V. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)<\/a> reported in (1979) 2<br \/>\nSUPREME COURT CASES 322.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. The learned Magistrate also may keep in mind the following precedents:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) <a href=\"\/doc\/14206\/\">State of M.P v. Mishrilal<\/a> reported in 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Cri)<br \/>\n1829.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii)Sudhir v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2001 CRL. L. J. 1072.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii) Nathilal and others v. State of U.P. And another reported in 1990-<br \/>\nSupreme Court Cases (Crl) 638.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. A mere perusal of the above said decisions would amply make the point<br \/>\nclear that in matters of this nature, the crucial role to be played is by the<br \/>\nlearned Magistrate concerned.  It is for the petitioner to file necessary<br \/>\nprotest petition before the learned Magistrate within a period of ten days from<br \/>\nthe date of receipt of a copy of this order expressing his grievance, whereupon<br \/>\nthe learned Magistrate has to resort to any one of the procedures contemplated<br \/>\nin the aforesaid decisions and accordingly, deal with the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. As such, by issuing the aforesaid direction, this Contempt Petition<br \/>\nstands closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>rsb<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.The Inspector of Police,<br \/>\n  C1 Thideer Nagar Police Station, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.\t\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court K.K.Ramesh vs Thangavel on 6 October, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06\/10\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Contempt Petition (MD)No.534 of 2010 K.K.Ramesh &#8230; Petitioner Vs Thangavel, Inspector of Police, C1 Thideer Nagar Police Station, Madurai. &#8230; Respondent Prayer Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt [&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-6512","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>K.K.Ramesh vs Thangavel on 6 October, 2010 - 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\/k-k-ramesh-vs-thangavel-on-6-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.K.Ramesh vs Thangavel on 6 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-ramesh-vs-thangavel-on-6-october-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-22T06:43:32+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-ramesh-vs-thangavel-on-6-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-ramesh-vs-thangavel-on-6-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.K.Ramesh vs Thangavel on 6 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-22T06:43:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-ramesh-vs-thangavel-on-6-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2177,\"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\\\/k-k-ramesh-vs-thangavel-on-6-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-ramesh-vs-thangavel-on-6-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-ramesh-vs-thangavel-on-6-october-2010\",\"name\":\"K.K.Ramesh vs Thangavel on 6 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-22T06:43:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-ramesh-vs-thangavel-on-6-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-ramesh-vs-thangavel-on-6-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-ramesh-vs-thangavel-on-6-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.K.Ramesh vs Thangavel on 6 October, 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":"K.K.Ramesh vs Thangavel on 6 October, 2010 - 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\/k-k-ramesh-vs-thangavel-on-6-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.K.Ramesh vs Thangavel on 6 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-ramesh-vs-thangavel-on-6-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-22T06:43:32+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-ramesh-vs-thangavel-on-6-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-ramesh-vs-thangavel-on-6-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.K.Ramesh vs Thangavel on 6 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-22T06:43:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-ramesh-vs-thangavel-on-6-october-2010"},"wordCount":2177,"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\/k-k-ramesh-vs-thangavel-on-6-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-ramesh-vs-thangavel-on-6-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-ramesh-vs-thangavel-on-6-october-2010","name":"K.K.Ramesh vs Thangavel on 6 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-22T06:43:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-ramesh-vs-thangavel-on-6-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-ramesh-vs-thangavel-on-6-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-ramesh-vs-thangavel-on-6-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.K.Ramesh vs Thangavel on 6 October, 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\/6512","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=6512"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6512\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6512"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6512"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6512"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}