{"id":71355,"date":"2010-11-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-rajasekaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-1-november-2010"},"modified":"2016-09-20T17:56:57","modified_gmt":"2016-09-20T12:26:57","slug":"t-rajasekaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-1-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-rajasekaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-1-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"T.Rajasekaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of … on 1 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
T.Rajasekaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of … on 1 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 01\/11\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nCrl.O.P.(MD).No.9548 of 2010\n&\nCrl.O.P.(MD).No.12781 of 2010\nAnd\nM.P.(MD).Nos. 1, 1 and 2 of 2010\n\n1.T.Rajasekaran\n2.A.Krishna Guru\n3.K.Ganeshan\n4.R.Muthuraja\n5.R.Kannan\n6.S.Farhad\n7.K.Vijaya Kumar\n8.R.Durai Pandian\t\t\t...  Petitioners in both \t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCrl.O.Ps.\t\n\nVs\n\n1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police\n  Samayanallur Division\n  Madurai District\n\n2.The Sub-Inspector of Police\n  Cholavanthan Police Station\n  Madurai District\n\n3.N.Ramesh\t\t\t\t... Respondents in both \t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCrl.O.Ps.\n\nPRAYER IN CRL.O.P.(MD).No. 9548\n\nPetition filed under Section 482 of the Code of\nCriminal Procedure, to call for records in C.C.No. 116 of 2010 dated 4.5.2010\npending before the learned District  Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti\nand quash the same as illegal.\n\nPRAYER IN CRL.O.P.(MD).No. 12781\n\nPetition filed under Section 482 of the Code\nof Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondent No.1 to serve the referral\nnotice to the petitioner in respect of Crime No. 50 of 2010 on the file of the\nrespondent No.2 registered under Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Tribes (Prevention\nof Atrocities) Act, 1989 filed by the petitioner and keep the proceedings in\npending in C.C.No. 116 of 2010 pending before the District Munsif Cum Judicial\nMagistrate, Vadipatti filed by the respondent No.1 in Crime No. 49 of 2010 under\nSections 147, 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC in abeyance until the both the\nproceedings are taken together by the Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti.\n***\n<\/pre>\n
!For Petitioners in
\nboth Crl.O.Ps.\t   … Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
\n^For RR 1 and 2 in
\nboth Crl.O.Ps.\t   … Mr.L.Murugan
\n\t\t       Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
\n\t\t       for R.1 and R.2
\n\t\t       Mr.B.Pugalendhi for R.3<\/p>\n
:COMMON ORDER<\/p>\n
\tCrl.O.P(MD)No.9548 of 2010 has been filed to call for records in C.C.No.
\n116 of 2010 dated 4.5.2010 pending before the learned District  Munsif cum
\nJudicial Magistrate, Vadipatti and quash the same as illegal.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. Crl.O.P(MD)No.12781 of 2010 has been filed to direct the respondent
\nNo.1 to serve the referral notice to the petitioner in respect of Crime No. 50
\nof 2010 on the file of the respondent No.2 registered under Section 3(i)(x) of
\nScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 filed by the petitioner
\nand keep the proceedings in C.C.No. 116 of 2010 pending before the District
\nMunsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti filed by the respondent No.1 in Crime
\nNo. 49 of 2010 under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC in abeyance until
\nboth the proceedings are taken together by the Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti.\n<\/p>\n
\t 3. Concisely and precisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary for
\nthe disposal of these petitions, would run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe police registered the case in Crime No.49 of 2010 for the offence
\nunder Sections 147, 341, 323, 294(B) and 506(i) I.P.C., consequent upon the
\ncomplaint lodged by one Ramesh, the Junior Officer of the Fenner Conveyer
\nBelting Division Private Ltd., to the effect that some employees of Fenner
\n(India) Labour Union committed rioting and also uttered filthy words. It appears
\nthat the police conducted the investigation into the matter and laid the charge
\nsheet in C.C.No. 116 of 2010 before learned District Munsif Cum Judicial
\nMagistrate, Vadipatti and the same is pending as the charges have not yet been
\nframed.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. Whereas the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit
\nthat relating to the Crime No.50 of 2010, the Deputy Superintendent of Police
\ndropped action after serving notice to the de-facto complainant.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9548 of 2010 has been filed by the accused in
\nC.C.No.116 of 2010 (Crime No.49 of 2010) for getting the charge sheet quashed on
\nthe ground that the case itself is fraught with falsity and it is not worthy of
\nbeing processed as per law.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. Crl.O.P.(MD).No.12781 of 2010 has been filed for the purpose of getting
\na direction to get served the referral notice to the petitioner in respect of
\nCrime No.50 of 2010 and also to get the connected case in C.C.No. 116 of 2010
\nkept in abeyance till the case in Crime No.49 of 2010 is processed finally.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. The gist and kernel of the arguments as put forth on the side of the
\nlearned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions would be to the effect
\nthat both the cases are inter-linked and interwoven and it cannot be viewed
\nseparately;  however, the police did choose to treat them separately and went to
\nthe extent of filing the charge sheet in Crime No.49 of 2010; and the police
\nsimply dropped the action unjustifiably without even giving the referral notice
\nin Crime No. 50 of 2010.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Whereas the learned counsel for the de-facto complainant in C.C.No.116
\nof 2010 (Crime No.49 of 2010) would put forth and set forth his argument which
\ncould be pithily and precisely set out thus:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe accused in C.C.No.116 of 2010 cannot try to get the matter adjourned
\nabnormally and ad infinitum and as though they allegedly got aggrieved by the
\nreferral of the case by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in Crime No.50 of
\n2010.  According to the learned counsel for the de-facto complainant in
\nC.C.No.116 of 2010, the said case in Crime No.50 of 2010 invoking the provisions
\nof Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is having
\nnothing to do with the case in C.C.No.116 of 2010 wherein the de-facto
\ncomplainant is neither an accused in Crime No. 50 of 2010 nor a witness. In such
\na case, the petitioner cannot try to stall the proceedings and the learned
\nDistrict Cum Judicial Magistrate, should be allowed to proceed with the case in
\nC.C.No. 116 of 2010.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. The fact remains that the occurrences which are the subject matters of
\nboth the crime numbers happened on one and the same day i.e., on 16.02.2010;
\nhowever, there is allegedly half-an-hour gap between the time of occurrences.
\nMoreover, in matters of this nature, the said half-an-hour difference shown
\nbetween the occurrences covered under the respective two F.I.Rs, could be taken
\nas material or immaterial, depending upon various factors and  there are decided
\ncases also in that regard.  So, it is the duty of the learned Magistrate to look
\ninto those aspects thoroughly and arrive at a conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. Now, the case in Crime No.50 of 2010 is alleged to have been referred
\nas mistake of fact.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. The learned counsel for the de-facto complainant in Crime No.50 of
\n2010 would submit that no referral notice was served on his client.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. Taking into consideration the relevant factors set out supra, I am of
\nthe considered view that one more opportunity should be given to the de-facto
\ncomplainant, namely, T.Rajasekaran in Crime No.50 of 2010 to file protest
\npetition before the Magistrate concerned within a period of one week from the
\ndate of receipt of a copy of this order; whereupon the learned Magistrate is
\nexpected to take up the protest petition and consider the same cutting across
\nlimitation point.  The learned Magistrate is enjoined to consider specifically
\ninter alia the following:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) Whether unjustifiably the Deputy Superintendent of Police referred the
\ncase in Crime No.50 of 2010 as mistake of fact;\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii)\twhile doing so, the learned Magistrate shall keep in mind the
\nfollowing decisions:\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra<\/a> reported in AIR 1968 SC 117.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) H.S.Bains, v. The State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), reported in
\nAIR 1980 SUPREME COURT 1883.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c)  TULA RAM V. KISHORE SINGH,<\/a> reported in (1977) 4 SCC 459.\n<\/p>\n
\t(d) RAM LAL NARANG V. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)<\/a> reported in (1979) 2
\nSUPREME COURT CASES 322.\n<\/p>\n
\t(e) Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau v. State of Gujarat<\/a> reported in (2010) 2
\nSupreme Court Cases (Cri) 801.\n<\/p>\n
\t(f) Kunga Nima Lepcha and others v. State of Sikkim and others<\/a> reported in
\n(2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 878.\n<\/p>\n
\t(g) Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat and others<\/a> reported in (2010) 2
\nSupreme Court Cases (Cri) 1006.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) While considering so, the Magistrate should also see as to whether
\nthere is any nexus between C.C.No.116 of 2010 (Crime No.49 of 2010) and the case
\nin Cr.No.50 of 2010 and if he finds that both the incidents are different, then
\nwithout any further loss of time, he has to proceed with the case in C.C.No. 116
\nof 2010. But on the other hand, if he considers that the case in C.C.No.116 of
\n2010 (Crime No.49 of 2010) and the case in Cr.No.50 of 2010 are having close
\nnexus, even though they did not occur as part of the same transaction, then he
\nshould refer to the following decisions:\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) State of M.P v. Mishrilal<\/a> reported in 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Cri)
\n1829.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b)Sudhir v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2001 CRL. L. J. 1072.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) Nathilal and others v. State of U.P. And another reported in 1990-
\nSupreme Court Cases (Crl) 638.  An excerpt from it, would run thus:
\n\t“We think that the fair procedure to adopt in a matter like the present
\nwhere there are cross cases, is to direct that the same learned Judge must try
\nboth the cross cases one after the other.  After the recording of evidence in
\none case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he must reserve the
\njudgment.  Thereafter he must proceed to hear the cross case and after recording
\nall the evidence he must hear the arguments but reserve the judgment in that
\ncase.  The same learned Judge must thereafter dispose of the matters by two
\nseparate judgments.  In deciding each of the cases, he can rely only on the
\nevidence recorded in that particular case.  The evidence recorded in the cross
\ncase cannot be looked into.  Nor can the judge be influenced by whatever is
\nargued in the cross case.  Each case must be decided on the basis of the
\nevidence which has been placed on record in that particular case without being
\ninfluenced in any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the cross case.
\nBut both the judgments must be pronounced by the same learned Judge one after
\nthe other”\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv) On the other hand, if the Magistrate feels that both the cases are
\nintegral part of one and the same incident, then it is his duty to find out as
\nto who is the aggressor and one case has to be dropped and the other has to be
\nprocessed further. As such, it is the duty of the Magistrate without any bias or
\nprejudice to apply his mind to the facts and circumstances involved in
\nC.C.No.116 of 2010 (Crime No.49 of 2010) and the case in Crime No.50 of 2010 and
\nprocess the matters in the light of the above observations made by this Court
\nwithin a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. In the result, both the Criminal Original Petitions are disposed of.
\nConsequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.\n<\/p>\n
vsg (+rsb)<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.\tThe Deputy Superintendent of Police
\n\tSamayanallur Division
\n\tMadurai District<\/p>\n
2.\tThe Sub-Inspector of Police
\n\tCholavanthan Police Station
\n\tMadurai District<\/p>\n
3.\tThe Additional Public Prosecutor
\n\tMadurai Bench of Madras High Court
\n \tMadurai<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court T.Rajasekaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of … on 1 November, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01\/11\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9548 of 2010 & Crl.O.P.(MD).No.12781 of 2010 And M.P.(MD).Nos. 1, 1 and 2 of 2010 1.T.Rajasekaran 2.A.Krishna Guru 3.K.Ganeshan 4.R.Muthuraja 5.R.Kannan 6.S.Farhad 7.K.Vijaya Kumar 8.R.Durai Pandian […]<\/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-71355","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT.Rajasekaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 1 November, 2010 - 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\/t-rajasekaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-1-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.Rajasekaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 1 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-rajasekaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-1-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-20T12:26:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-rajasekaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-1-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-rajasekaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-1-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.Rajasekaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of … on 1 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-20T12:26:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-rajasekaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-1-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1579,\"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\\\/t-rajasekaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-1-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-rajasekaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-1-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-rajasekaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-1-november-2010\",\"name\":\"T.Rajasekaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 1 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-20T12:26:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-rajasekaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-1-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-rajasekaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-1-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-rajasekaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-1-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.Rajasekaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of … on 1 November, 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":"T.Rajasekaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 1 November, 2010 - 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\/t-rajasekaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-1-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.Rajasekaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 1 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-rajasekaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-1-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-20T12:26:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-rajasekaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-1-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-rajasekaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-1-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.Rajasekaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of … on 1 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-20T12:26:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-rajasekaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-1-november-2010"},"wordCount":1579,"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\/t-rajasekaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-1-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-rajasekaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-1-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-rajasekaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-1-november-2010","name":"T.Rajasekaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 1 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-20T12:26:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-rajasekaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-1-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-rajasekaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-1-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-rajasekaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-1-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.Rajasekaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of … on 1 November, 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\/71355","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=71355"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71355\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71355"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71355"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71355"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}