{"id":73299,"date":"2011-01-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minku-vs-state-on-28-january-2011"},"modified":"2015-06-25T16:15:40","modified_gmt":"2015-06-25T10:45:40","slug":"minku-vs-state-on-28-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minku-vs-state-on-28-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"Minku vs State on 28 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Minku vs State on 28 January, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.MA\/15988\/2008\t 6\/ 6\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nMISC.APPLICATION No. 15988 of 2008\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nMINKU\nS GANDHI & 1 - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nVIRAT G POPAT for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2. \nMS SHAH APP for\nRespondent(s) : 1, \nMR ABHISHEK M MEHTA for Respondent(s) :\n2, \n========================================================= \n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 28\/01\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
Petitioners
\n\tare original accused. They seek quashing of complaint bearing
\n\tC.R.No.I-52 of 2008 filed before GIDC Vatva Police Station on
\n\t26.5.2008 and all proceedings arising out of the said complaint.\n<\/p>\n
Short
\n\tfacts are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
2,1\t\tApparently
\n\tbetween the petitioners and complainant, there were business
\n\trelations. Petitioners had been receiving certain chemicals from the
\n\temployer of the complainant known as PCL-3 chemicals for the purpose
\n\tof the factory owned and run by the petitioners. In the complaint,
\n\tfiled on 26.5.2008, the complainant had alleged inter-alia that on
\n\t19.5.2008 as instructed by his employer Vipulbhai, he delivered 1000
\n\tkgs. of PCL -3 chemical at the factory of the petitioners at Vatva
\n\tGIDC. He was informed that previously also 3000 kgs of said chemical
\n\twas supplied for which recovery of Rs.3,96,060\/- was to be made.
\n\tThus, along with the fresh consignment, total payment of
\n\tRs.5,43,060\/-  was to be received. Accordingly, the complainant
\n\tcarried the chemical to the factory of the petitioners whereupon
\n\tpetitioner No.1 informed the complainant that only after the
\n\tchemical was unloaded, he will sign the delivery receipt. After
\n\tunloading the chemical, the complainant was given 3 cheques of
\n\tRs.1,23,000\/- Rs.2,73,060\/- and Rs.1,47,000\/-. The petitioner No.1,
\n\thowever, instructed him to call his boss who came to the site.
\n\tPetitioner No.1 complained to them that the quality of the goods is
\n\tnot good and he does not intend to pay. Vipulbhai, the employer of
\n\tthe company told the accused that if they are not satisfied with the
\n\tquality, they may return the goods, whereupon both the accused got
\n\texcited and started abusing and threatened to beat up the
\n\tcomplainant and Vipulbhai. They refused to sign delivery chalan and
\n\talso snatched away the cheques given by them. Subsequently on
\n\t24.5.2008, when once again Vipulbhai and complainant visited their
\n\tfactory, they refused to either sign the delivery chalan or return
\n\tthe goods. On the basis of these averments, above FIR came to be
\n\tlodged. Investigation was carried out, charge-sheet was filed for
\n\toffence under Section 384 of Indian Penal Code against all the
\n\taccused. During the investigation, Investigating Officer recorded
\n\tthe statements of the complainant, his employer Vipulbhai as well as
\n\tKrishna Himatbhai Shrimali, the driver of the vehicle in which the
\n\tchemical was transported. All of them more or less reiterated what
\n\tis stated in the complaint.\n<\/p>\n
Under
\n\ta panchnama dated 26.5.2008, entire 1000 kgs. of the chemical
\n\tpreviously delivered by the complainant came to be seized. It is
\n\tstated that ultimately the same was also handed over to the
\n\tcomplainant. To this statement made in the petition, no rebuttal has
\n\tbeen made in the reply filed by the complainant.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel
\n\tfor the petitioners submitted that no case for offence under Section
\n\t384 of Indian Penal Code is made out. Complaint was lodged nearly
\n\tafter a week of the alleged incident. In the meantime, the
\n\tpetitioners had also raised the issue of ill-treatment by the
\n\tcomplainant and his employer. Such complaint was, however, not
\n\tregistered. Entire consignment was seized immediately and
\n\tthereafter, handed over to the complainant.\n<\/p>\n
He
\n\tfurther contended that ingredients of Section 383 of IPC which
\n\tdefines the offence of extortion are not made out. He relied on
\n\tdecision in the case of Dhananjay alias Dhananjay Kumar Singh
\n\tV\/s. State of Bihar and another reported in (2007) 14 SCC\n<\/p>\n
\t768. <\/p>\n
On
\n\tthe other hand, learned counsel for the complainant opposed the
\n\tpetition contending that the trial has already  been commenced. Only
\n\ton account of non availability of the petitioner-accused, the same
\n\tgot delayed. At this stage, therefore, no interference is called
\n\tfor. He submitted that if the allegations made in the complaint are
\n\ttaken to be true, the petitioners can be stated to have committed
\n\tthe offence of extortion.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave also heard learned APP for the State.\n<\/p>\n
From
\n\tthe consideration of the submissions and perusal of the documents on
\n\trecord, it emerges that there were business relations between the
\n\tpetitioners and complainant’s employer. Vipulbhai the employer of
\n\tthe complainant was the supplier of certain chemicals which were
\n\tconsumed by the petitioners in their factory. Previously also, such
\n\tchemicals were supplied. Payments were, however, outstanding. When
\n\ton the third occasion 1000 Kgs. of chemicals were delivered,
\n\tdisputes arose between the parties. Petitioners contended that the
\n\tquality is inferior and they refused to either return the
\n\tconsignment or to sign the delivery chalan. They, in fact, snatched
\n\tback 3 cheques issued for covering entire payment of chemicals
\n\tdelivered till then.\n<\/p>\n
Primarily,
\n\tthe entire issue arose out of business relations between the parties
\n\tand it is predominantly of civil dispute.  Of course, there is an
\n\telement of usage of tone language and threat to beat up the
\n\tcomplainant and Vipulbhai. However, short question, in facts of the
\n\tcase is, can the petitioner be stated to have committed offence of
\n\textortion punishable under Section 384 of IPC? The term extortion
\n\thas been defined in Section 383 which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Section\n<\/p>\n
383. Extortion- Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any
\ninjury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly
\ninduces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any
\nproperty or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may
\nbe converted into a valuable security, commits “extortion”.”\n<\/p>\n
If
\n\tone peruses the definition of offence of extortion, it is required
\n\tthat the accused should have intentinoally put any person in fear of
\n\tany injury to that person or any other person and thereby
\n\tdishonestly induced such a person to deliver any property or
\n\tvaluable security, or anything which may be converted in the
\n\tvaluable security. If one peruses all the allegations in the FIR
\n\tminutely, it nowhere states that the accused had put complainant and
\n\tany other person in fear of injury and thereby induced him to
\n\tdeliver any property or valuable security. The complaint only
\n\trecords that after having received the consignment of 1000 kgs.
\n\tchemical, petitioners refused to sign the delivery chalan citing
\n\tinferior quality of the material as a reason. They snatched back the
\n\tcheques issued by them and also refused to return the goods. To my
\n\tmind, such allegations would not constitute the offence of extortion
\n\tas defined under Section 383 of IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\tAdditionally, I
\n\tfind that the dispute is predominantly of civil nature. Out of
\n\tbusiness relations. The goods, namely, 1000 Kgs. of chemicals were
\n\talready handed over to the complainant. In totality of the facts and
\n\tcircumstances, I am of the opinion that permitting the trial to
\n\tproceed further against the petitioners would amount to abuse of
\n\tprocess of Court. The FIR bearing C.R.No.I-52 of 2008 filed before
\n\tGIDC Vatva Police Station on 26.5.2008 with all consequential
\n\tproceedings arising out of the same are quashed. Rule made absolute
\n\taccordingly. Direct service permitted.\n<\/p>\n
\tCounsel for the
\n\tpetitioners also submitted that petitioners have no objection if
\n\tsuch mudamal finally remains with the complainant permanently. Thus,
\n\tdespite quashing of the petition, it is clarified and directed that
\n\t1000 Kgs. of chemical handed over to the complainant from the
\n\tpetitioners  will be retained by the complainant and the petitioners
\n\twill have no claim over the same.\n<\/p>\n
(AKIL
\nKURESHI, J.)<\/p>\n
(ashish)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Minku vs State on 28 January, 2011 Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/15988\/2008 6\/ 6 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 15988 of 2008 ========================================================= MINKU S GANDHI & 1 – Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 – Respondent(s) ========================================================= […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-73299","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMinku vs State on 28 January, 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\/minku-vs-state-on-28-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Minku vs State on 28 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minku-vs-state-on-28-january-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=\"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-25T10:45:40+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minku-vs-state-on-28-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minku-vs-state-on-28-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Minku vs State on 28 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-25T10:45:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minku-vs-state-on-28-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1190,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minku-vs-state-on-28-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minku-vs-state-on-28-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minku-vs-state-on-28-january-2011\",\"name\":\"Minku vs State on 28 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-25T10:45:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minku-vs-state-on-28-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minku-vs-state-on-28-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minku-vs-state-on-28-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Minku vs State on 28 January, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Minku vs State on 28 January, 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\/minku-vs-state-on-28-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Minku vs State on 28 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minku-vs-state-on-28-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-25T10:45:40+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minku-vs-state-on-28-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minku-vs-state-on-28-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Minku vs State on 28 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-25T10:45:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minku-vs-state-on-28-january-2011"},"wordCount":1190,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minku-vs-state-on-28-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minku-vs-state-on-28-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minku-vs-state-on-28-january-2011","name":"Minku vs State on 28 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-25T10:45:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minku-vs-state-on-28-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minku-vs-state-on-28-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minku-vs-state-on-28-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Minku vs State on 28 January, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/73299","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=73299"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73299\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=73299"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=73299"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=73299"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}