{"id":66327,"date":"2011-08-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalbir-singh-vs-state-ors-on-23-august-2011"},"modified":"2018-11-02T07:30:24","modified_gmt":"2018-11-02T02:00:24","slug":"dalbir-singh-vs-state-ors-on-23-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalbir-singh-vs-state-ors-on-23-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Dalbir Singh vs State & Ors. on 23 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Dalbir Singh vs State & Ors. on 23 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Suresh Kait<\/div>\n
*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n+        CRL.M.C. 1852\/2011\n\n     %                 Judgment reserved on: 18th August, 2011\n                       Judgment delivered on:23rd August, 2011\n\n\nDALBIR SINGH                                        ..... Petitioner\n                                     Through: Mr. Deepak Sharma\n                                     and\n                                     Ms. Dimple Vivek, Advs.\n                       Versus\n\nSTATE & ORS.                              ..... Respondents\n                                     Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura,\n                                     APP for the State\n                                     Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Adv. for\n                                     R-2\nCORAM:\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH                    KAIT\n\n\n     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers\n        may be allowed to see the judgment?     Yes.\n     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?      Yes.\n     3. Whether the judgment should be reported\n         in the Digest?                         Yes.\n\n\nSURESH KAIT, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.       Vide the instant petition, the petitioners has prayed<\/p>\n
to       quash     the       FIR   No.   344\/2010     under     Sections<\/p>\n
467\/448\/427\/420\/506                  Indian   Penal     Code,     1860,<\/p>\n
         Crl.M.C.1852\/2011                             Page 1 of 13<\/span>
\n registered at P.S. Nangloi, Delhi against the petitioner on<\/p>\n
the complaint of the complainant\/respondent No. 2<\/p>\n
Smt. Surender Kumari Aora.\n<\/p>\n
2. Vide settlement dated 03.11.2010, it was agreed<\/p>\n
between the parties that the petitioner shall pay a sum of<\/p>\n
`24,00,000\/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs) by means of<\/p>\n
demand draft in the name of respondent No. 2 which will<\/p>\n
be paid before the court at the time of recording the<\/p>\n
statement of the parties.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.   Thereafter, the respondent No. 2\/Smt. Surender<\/p>\n
Kumari Arora shall execute the necessary sale deed in<\/p>\n
respect of property measuring 1000 square yards bearing<\/p>\n
Khasra No. 33\/22\/2, 23\/31, 53\/3, 13\/1 situated in<\/p>\n
village Tikri Kalan, Delhi, i.e., the suit property after the<\/p>\n
receipt of DD.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The cost of the execution of sale deed would be borne<\/p>\n
by respondent No. 2 and she would cooperate in quashing<\/p>\n
of the aforesaid FIR.\n<\/p>\n
5.   Further, it was agreed that the FIR No. 344\/2010<\/p>\n
     Crl.M.C.1852\/2011                       Page 2 of 13<\/span>
\n registered       at         PS     Nangloi      under        Sections<\/p>\n
467\/448\/427\/420\/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860<\/p>\n
registered against the petitioner shall be quashed.<\/p>\n
6.   It   was       specifically   and    mutually      agreed      that<\/p>\n
respondent No. 2 shall cooperate with the petitioner in<\/p>\n
quashing of the aforesaid FIR from this court as well as<\/p>\n
will give affidavit to this effect in PS Nangloi at the time of<\/p>\n
quashing of the FIR.\n<\/p>\n
7.   It was also agreed that the plaintiff would withdraw<\/p>\n
the suit pending in the court of Civil Judge, Delhi bearing<\/p>\n
Suit No. 63\/2010 on the next date of hearing.<\/p>\n
8.   As per the settlement before the Mediation Centre,<\/p>\n
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, respondent No. 2 as well as her<\/p>\n
legal heirs shall have no claim whatsoever in any manner<\/p>\n
over the suit property after the aforesaid settlement.<\/p>\n
9.   Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that in<\/p>\n
pursuance      of     the    compromise      recorded    before     the<\/p>\n
Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, petitioner had paid<\/p>\n
\u00ec 24,00,000\/- to respondent No. 2 before the court of<\/p>\n
     Crl.M.C.1852\/2011                               Page 3 of 13<\/span>
\n learned Civil Judge, Delhi. Thereafter, the cheques,<\/p>\n
Demand Draft and the statement of petitioner and<\/p>\n
respondent No. 2 were recorded on oath as is indicated in<\/p>\n
order dated 12.11.2010 of Civil Judge, in Suit No.<\/p>\n
63\/2010.\n<\/p>\n
10. Respondent No. 2 on oath agreed that she shall have<\/p>\n
no objection if the aforesaid FIR against the petitioner is<\/p>\n
quashed.\n<\/p>\n
11. Further, respondent No. 2 gave the undertaking<\/p>\n
before the learned Civil court that she will not interfere in<\/p>\n
the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and will not claim<\/p>\n
any right with respect to the title of the suit property as<\/p>\n
she has sold the suit property to the petitioner.<\/p>\n
12. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that all the<\/p>\n
demand drafts and cheques were duly encashed in favour<\/p>\n
of respondent No. 2, however, after receiving the same,<\/p>\n
she has shown her true colours and refuse to cooperate<\/p>\n
with the petitioner for the purpose of quashing of the<\/p>\n
aforesaid FIR.      Further, respondent No. 2 have collided<\/p>\n
     Crl.M.C.1852\/2011                       Page 4 of 13<\/span>
\n with respondent No. 1 with the sole purpose to extort<\/p>\n
money from the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
13. Further submits, in the compelling circumstances,<\/p>\n
the petitioner moved an anticipator bail application before<\/p>\n
the District Judge III and the same was admitted vide<\/p>\n
order dated 26.02.2011         with direction to    join the<\/p>\n
investigation.\n<\/p>\n
14. Even at the time of passing of the said order, the<\/p>\n
learned     Additional    Sessions   Judge   enquired       from<\/p>\n
respondent No. 2 whether she had received \u00ec 24,00,000\/-<\/p>\n
from the petitioner, to which respondent No. 2 admitted.<\/p>\n
15. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the respondent<\/p>\n
No.2 further submits that she is a widow, and has no<\/p>\n
independent source of income for her and for her child as<\/p>\n
well, accept this 1 Biga land in question.<\/p>\n
16.   Further submits that respondent No. 2 being a<\/p>\n
helpless widow was under depression and had fear of her<\/p>\n
life as the Petitioner had been extending threats to her<\/p>\n
with his associates and further the petitioner in collision<\/p>\n
      Crl.M.C.1852\/2011                      Page 5 of 13<\/span>
\n with other associates filed a suit for permanent injunction<\/p>\n
titled as Sh. Ajay vs. Vijay and others vide suit No.<\/p>\n
63\/2010 in the court of learned Civil Judge, Tis Hazari<\/p>\n
courts, Delhi, wherein respondent No. 2 was made<\/p>\n
Defendant No. 2, therefore, in the peculiar circumstances,<\/p>\n
the respondent No. 2 had to concede and the matter was<\/p>\n
referred to Mediation Centre, wherein the respondent No.<\/p>\n
2 agreed to received the meagre sum of \u00ec 24,00,000\/- in<\/p>\n
lieu of her above said land, even though the market price<\/p>\n
of the above said land is more than \u00ec 1.25 crores.        Had<\/p>\n
the deal been fair, respondent No. 2 would not have raised<\/p>\n
any objection to the conceded price.\n<\/p>\n
17. Further       submits   that   in   view   of   the   above<\/p>\n
circumstances, the proceedings before the Mediation<\/p>\n
Centre or proceeding in the Civil Court or the proceeding<\/p>\n
wherein the bail was granted to the petitioner, were out of<\/p>\n
compulsion and pathetic circumstances of respondent<\/p>\n
No. 2, since she was under the constant fear of her life<\/p>\n
and remained depressed, she could not initiate any<\/p>\n
     Crl.M.C.1852\/2011                         Page 6 of 13<\/span>
\n proceeding against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
18. This issue is not res integra. The same has been<\/p>\n
settled by the Apex court in a case of Mohd. Shamim and<\/p>\n
others vs. Smt. Nahid Begum and Anr.,<\/a> (2005) 3 SCC<\/p>\n
302, has observed as under :-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        “11. Before us, there is no denial or dispute as
\n       regard       the        factum   of   entering      into   the
\n       aforementioned settlement dated 14.11.2002. In
\n       the said deed of compromise it has categorically
\n       been averred that the same had been entered
\n       into    on        the    intervention    of   S.N.     Gupta,
\n       Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. It has also
\n       been accepted that out of sum of Rs. 2,75,000\/-
\n       , a sum of Rs. 2,25,000\/- has been paid to the
\n       First    Respondent          herein     and   the     balance
\n       amount of Rs. 50,000\/- would be paid at the
\n       time of complainant’s making statement and no
\n       objection for quashing the FIR, which was
\n       retained in the court as per the direction of the
\n       court. It has further been averred that no
\n       dispute remained between the parties regarding
\n       the payment of dower amount (Mehar), dowry
\n       articles, including the alleged jewellary gift etc.<\/p>\n
     Crl.M.C.1852\/2011                                     Page 7 of 13<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        12. In view of the fact that the settlement was
\n       arrived at the intervention of a judicial officer of
\n       the rank of the Additional Sessions Judge, we
\n       are of the opinion, the contention of the First
\n       Respondent herein to the effect that she was not
\n       aware of the contents thereof and the said
\n       agreement as also the affidavit which were got
\n       signed by her by misrepresentation of facts
\n       must be rejected. In the facts and circumstances
\n       of this case, we have no doubt in our mind that
\n       the denial of execution of the said deed of
\n       settlement is an afterthought on the part of the
\n       Respondent No. 1 herein.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       13. Ex facie the settlement between the parties
\n       appears to be genuine. If the contention of the
\n       First Respondent herein is to be accepted, she
\n       would not have accepted the sum of Rs.
\n       2,25,000\/- and in any event she could have filed
\n       an appropriate application in that behalf before
\n       the Court of S.N. Gupta, Additional Sessions
\n       Judge, Delhi. What was least expected of her
\n       was that she would return the said sum of Rs.
\n       2,25,000\/- to the Appellants herein.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
19. The petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this<\/p>\n
court in a case of Jasbir and others V. State and Anr.<\/p>\n
142(2007) DLT 141, wherein, the parties after settlement
\n     Crl.M.C.1852\/2011                          Page 8 of 13<\/span>
\n before the learned Mediator tried to wriggle out of the<\/p>\n
proceedings      arrived       at    the   time    of    the     mediation<\/p>\n
proceedings. It was held and observed in para 9 of the<\/p>\n
above said judgment that;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       “The settlement was arrive at during mediation
\n       proceedings.       The       Legislature    has     amended
\n       Section 89 of the code of Civil Procedure in the
\n       year 2002. There is an all round attempt by the
\n       Legislature       and    Judiciary,    as    well    as   the
\n       Executive, to promote the settlement of disputes
\n       through the process of Mediation. Therefore,
\n       once disputes between the parties have been
\n       settled by the process of mediation, it would be
\n       in the public interest as well as to attach
\n       importance to such a process and treat the
\n       settlement as a solemn settlement. Otherwise,
\n       the movement of mediation may itself suffer if
\n       the parties are given to understand that even
\n       after they agree for settlement, one of the parties
\n       can still back out.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
20. The aforesaid judgment of Jasbir (supra), thereafter<\/p>\n
relied upon by this court in IA No. 12888\/2008 in CS(OS)<\/p>\n
1495\/2005 decided on 06.07.2009 and also in a case of<\/p>\n
Purshottam Gupta and others V. The State and Anr.,
\n     Crl.M.C.1852\/2011                                   Page<\/span><\/a> 9 of 13
\n in Crl. M.C. No.3230-32\/2006 decided on 23.01.2008,<\/p>\n
wherein this Court has observed as under:-<\/p>\n
       “12. Reverting to the present case, acting on the
\n       compromise the Respondent No. 2 accepted the
\n       amount of Rs. 4 lakhs, accepted the divorce by
\n       way of mutual consent and also withdrew the
\n       maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC.
\n       However, for some unknown reason she chose
\n       not to join in the present petition seeking
\n       quashing of the criminal proceedings under
\n       Sections 498A, 406\/34 IPC. She was served in
\n       the present proceedings but has chosen to
\n       remain absent.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       13. This court cannot but accept the statements
\n       made on oath by Respondent No. 2 accepting
\n       the terms of the compromise and recorded by
\n       and forming part of the record of the Punjab and
\n       Haryana High Court. She has also accepted the
\n       sum of Rs. 4 lakhs in terms of the compromise.
\n       The divorce has been granted and the criminal
\n       case for maintenance stands withdrawn. Only
\n       the last bit regarding the quashing of the
\n       criminal      proceedings   under   Sections   498A,
\n       406\/34 IPC remains. With the Respondent No. 2<\/span>
\n       not appearing in these proceedings to contest<\/p>\n
     Crl.M.C.1852\/2011                           Page 10 of 13<\/span>
\n          the petition, the assertions of the petitioners as
\n         noted hereinabove remain uncontroverter.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         14. This Court is Therefore inclined to follow the
\n         aforementioned two decisions of the Supreme
\n         Court in Ruchi Agarwal and Mohd. Shamim and
\n         quash the pending criminal proceedings against
\n         the petitioners. It may be mentioned that the
\n         learned APP for the State also does not dispute
\n         the facts stated in the petition or the law as
\n         settled by the Supreme Court. He expresses no
\n         objection the quashing of the FIR in view of the
\n         aforesaid developments.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
21. The question before this court is whether the<\/p>\n
settlement arrived at Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari and<\/p>\n
thereafter the statement made on oath and also having<\/p>\n
received the total amount of \u00ec 24,00,000\/- in lieu of the<\/p>\n
property in question is binding upon respondent No. 2 or<\/p>\n
not?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
22. I note the settlement took place before the Mediation<\/p>\n
Centre, Tis Haziri on 03.11.2010. Thereafter, after the gap<\/p>\n
of eight days i.e. on 12.11.2010 the statement of<\/p>\n
respondent No. 2 was recorded on oath before the learned
\n       Crl.M.C.1852\/2011                         Page 11 of 13<\/span>
\n Civil Judge. Thereafter, she made statement before the<\/p>\n
learned District Judge III also that she had received<\/p>\n
\u00ec 24,00,000\/- from the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
23.   Even a common man understands that the rates of<\/p>\n
properties in Delhi increases on a daily basis. With the<\/p>\n
gap of nine months it is obvious that the rates of the<\/p>\n
aforesaid property would have increased to at least double<\/p>\n
if not triple the amount. Therefore, increase in the rates of<\/p>\n
property had led the respondent No. 2 to resile from<\/p>\n
settlement affected at Mediation Centre.<\/p>\n
24. In view of the above said conduct of respondent<\/p>\n
No. 2, it would be an abuse of procedure of this court if<\/p>\n
the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner<\/p>\n
are not allowed to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
25. Keeping in view the above discussion and the law as<\/p>\n
settled in the above discussed judgments, I quash the FIR<\/p>\n
No. 344 dated 29.09.2010 registered under Sections<\/p>\n
467\/448\/427\/406 at PS Nangloi and the proceedings<\/p>\n
      Crl.M.C.1852\/2011                      Page 12 of 13<\/span>
\n emanating therefrom.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
26. Accordingly,          Criminal   M.C.   No.1852\/2011       is<\/p>\n
allowed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
27.          No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                             SURESH KAIT, J<\/p>\n
August 23, 2011
\nj\/RS<\/p>\n
      Crl.M.C.1852\/2011                        Page 13 of 13<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Dalbir Singh vs State & Ors. on 23 August, 2011 Author: Suresh Kait * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1852\/2011 % Judgment reserved on: 18th August, 2011 Judgment delivered on:23rd August, 2011 DALBIR SINGH ….. Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Sharma and Ms. Dimple Vivek, Advs. Versus […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66327","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDalbir Singh vs State & Ors. on 23 August, 2011 - 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\/dalbir-singh-vs-state-ors-on-23-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dalbir Singh vs State & Ors. on 23 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalbir-singh-vs-state-ors-on-23-august-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-02T02:00:24+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\\\/dalbir-singh-vs-state-ors-on-23-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dalbir-singh-vs-state-ors-on-23-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dalbir Singh vs State & Ors. on 23 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-02T02:00:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dalbir-singh-vs-state-ors-on-23-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1966,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dalbir-singh-vs-state-ors-on-23-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dalbir-singh-vs-state-ors-on-23-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dalbir-singh-vs-state-ors-on-23-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Dalbir Singh vs State & Ors. on 23 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-02T02:00:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dalbir-singh-vs-state-ors-on-23-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dalbir-singh-vs-state-ors-on-23-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dalbir-singh-vs-state-ors-on-23-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dalbir Singh vs State & Ors. on 23 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Dalbir Singh vs State & Ors. on 23 August, 2011 - 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\/dalbir-singh-vs-state-ors-on-23-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dalbir Singh vs State & Ors. on 23 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalbir-singh-vs-state-ors-on-23-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-02T02:00:24+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\/dalbir-singh-vs-state-ors-on-23-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalbir-singh-vs-state-ors-on-23-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dalbir Singh vs State & Ors. on 23 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-02T02:00:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalbir-singh-vs-state-ors-on-23-august-2011"},"wordCount":1966,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalbir-singh-vs-state-ors-on-23-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalbir-singh-vs-state-ors-on-23-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalbir-singh-vs-state-ors-on-23-august-2011","name":"Dalbir Singh vs State & Ors. on 23 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-02T02:00:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalbir-singh-vs-state-ors-on-23-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalbir-singh-vs-state-ors-on-23-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalbir-singh-vs-state-ors-on-23-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dalbir Singh vs State & Ors. on 23 August, 2011"}]},{"@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\/66327","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=66327"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66327\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66327"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66327"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66327"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}