{"id":80276,"date":"2002-03-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-03-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpa-devi-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-march-2002"},"modified":"2017-10-22T12:15:41","modified_gmt":"2017-10-22T06:45:41","slug":"pushpa-devi-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-march-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpa-devi-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-march-2002","title":{"rendered":"Pushpa Devi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 March, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Pushpa Devi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 March, 2002<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2002 IVAD Delhi 505, 97 (2002) DLT 613<\/div>\n
Author: V Aggarwal<\/div>\n
Bench: B Khan, V Aggarwal<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
    V.S. Aggarwal, J.   <\/p>\n
 1. Mrs. Pushpa Devi (since deceased) had filed the
\npresent petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
\nof India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure seeking a direction for registration of a
\ncase under Section 302 Indian Penal Code read with
\nSection 120B of the said Code for the murder of the
\nson of the petitioner and for seeking a direction to
\nCentral Bureau of Investigation to investigate.\n<\/p>\n
 2. Ram Babu Sharma was the constable on duty at the
\nresidence of Deputy Commission of Police. it is
\nalleged that his duty of 5th April, 1999 was from 8.00
\nPM to 8.00 AM of 6th April, 1999. On 6th April, 1999
\nRam Babu Sharma was found injured\/wounded in Children
\nPark, India Gate which is stated to be 300 to 400
\nyards from the residence of the place where he was on
\nduty. Some persons saw Ram Babu in an injured
\ncondition and one of them informed the watchman Hari
\nRam and the police control room van standing nearby.
\nHe was removed to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. The
\nfamily of Ram Babu was also informed. Ram Babu Sharma
\nit is stated was not in a position to speak and by
\n8.10 AM he was declared to be dead. Petitioner
\ncontends foul play and her assertion is that it is not
\na case of suicide rather it is a case where deceased
\nRam Babu had been fatally wounded and therefore by
\nvirtue of the present petition it is prayed that
\nrespondents should be directed to register First
\nInformation Report already referred to above and for
\ntransfer of the investigation to an independent
\nagency.\n<\/p>\n
 3. During the pendency of the petition Mrs. Pushpa
\nDevi and died and the father of the deceased Ghanshyam
\nDas was transposed as the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
 4. The respondent has submitted the reply and
\npointed that on 6th April, 1999 in pursuance of the
\nreceipt of daily dairy No. 36-A at 6.20 AM Sub
\nInspector Ram Niwas and Constable Sanjeev Kumar
\nreached Children Park. They had found lost of blood
\nand two empty cartridges at the spot. On enquiries
\nSub Inspector came to know that injured has already
\nbeen taken to Ram Manohar Lohia hospital by the police
\ncontrol room van. The officer in charge of the police
\nstation Tilak Marg along with other members of the
\nstaff reached the hospital. It was found that injured
\nRam Babu was undergoing treatment in emergency ward.
\nSub Inspector Ram Niwas collected Medico Legal Report
\nat 6.55 AM. Ram Babu, Constable was declared dead at
\n8.10 AM. Thereupon the site was re-visited by the
\npolice officers. The blood earth stained earth was
\npicked up, two empty cartridges were also picked up
\nfrom the spot along with 18 live cartridges. The
\nmembers of the family of the deceased had been
\ninformed and inquest proceedings had been drawn.\n<\/p>\n
 5. It has further been asserted that Dr. G.K.
\nSharma, Professor and Head of the Department of
\nForensic Medicines in Smt. Sucheta Kriplani Hospital
\nconducted the postmortem. In the opinion of doctor
\ndeath could have been caused by “Coranio Cerebral
\ndamage as a result of fire-arm injury”. Statement of
\nother members who could throw light on the accident
\nwas recorded. None of the statement gave substantial
\ninformation as to the cause, attempt, motive of
\nsequence of the events leading to the death of Ram
\nBabu Sharma. Since it was not possible to reach the
\nconclusion the matter was discussed and inquest was
\nkept pending. However, Dr. G.K. Sharma based his
\nsubsequent opinion on circumstantial evidence, type of
\nfire arm used and its location on the same. He
\nconcluded that all the aforesaid factors are
\nconsistent with likely suicidal attempt by the
\nindividual concerned. The father of the deceased had
\ncomplained to the Commissioner of Police who
\ntransferred the enquiry to Crime Branch. Accordingly,
\nall relevant papers with Tilak Marg Police Station
\nwere handed over to Sub Inspector Jitender of Special
\nCrime team. The crime branch conduced a thorough
\nenquiry. During discussion the Commissioner of Police
\nraised certain queries. A detailed note based on
\ncircumstantial evidence and scientific evidence had
\ncome on record and it was agreed that it was a case of
\nsuicide. It has been mentioned further that FSL
\nMalviya Nagar had re-enacted the scene of incident
\nbefore the report was finalized.\n<\/p>\n
 6. The short question that comes up for
\nconsideration which is subject matter for
\nconsideration is as to whether in the facts of the
\ncase the court should direct registration of the First
\nInformation Report and transfer the investigation to
\nany other independent agency or not.\n<\/p>\n
 7. On behalf of the petitioner it was vehemently
\ncontended that the petitioners were apprehending
\ncertain facts or in other words foul play. They
\ncontend that Ram Babu had been murdered and therefore
\nFirst Information Report should be recorded and
\nfurther keeping in view the nature of the reply filed
\non behalf of the respondent it is prayed that
\ninvestigation be handed over to the Central Bureau of
\nInvestigation. The leaned counsel for the State with
\nequal vehemence contended that the petitioners have
\nbeen complaining and meeting the Commissioner of
\nPolice were heard and looked into and it was found
\nthat it was a case of suicide and therefore there was
\nno ground for further investigation.\n<\/p>\n
 8. Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in
\nits stark brevity cast a duty on the concerned police
\nstation to record the First Information Report when it
\ndiscloses a cognizable offence. When complaint is
\nmade with respect to a cognizable offence the
\ninformation can be given orally or in writing. The
\nsame has to be reduced into writing. Certain
\nexceptions have also creped in.\n<\/p>\n
 9. The Supreme Court in the case of    State of
\nHaryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal<\/a>    had gone into this controversy and in unqualified
\nterms drew a distinction as to what would be a
\nreasonable report and credible information, it was
\nultimately concluded and law laid down that if
\ninformation disclosed is a cognizable offence the
\npolice officer should record the First Information
\nReport. The relevant law in this regard as referred
\nto above reads:-\n<\/p>\n
 “32. Be it noted that in Section 154(1) of the
\nCode, the legislature in its collective wisdom
\nhas carefully and cautiously used the
\nexpression “information” without qualifying the
\nsame as in Section 41(1)(a) or (g) of the code
\nwherein the expressions, “reasonable complaint”
\nand “credible information” are used.
\nEvidently, the non-qualification of the word
\n“information” in Section 154(1) unlike in
\nSection 41(1)(a) and (g) of the Code may be for
\nthe reason that the police officer should not
\nrefuse to record an information relating to the
\ncommission of a cognizable offence and to
\nregister a case thereon on the ground that he
\nis not satisfied with the reasonableness or
\ncredibility of the information. In other
\nwords, ‘reasonableness’ or credibility of the
\nsaid information is not a condition precedent
\nfor registration of a case. A comparison of
\nthe present Section 154 with those of the
\nearlier Codes will indicate that the
\nlegislature had purposely thought it fit to
\nemploy only the word “information” without
\nqualifying the said word. Section 139 of the
\nCode of Criminal Procedure of 1861 (Act 25 of
\n1961) passed by the Legislative Council of
\nIndia read that ‘every complaint or
\ninformation’ preferred to an officer in charge
\nof a police station should be reduced into
\nwriting which provision was subsequently
\nmodified by Section 112 of the Code of 1872
\n(Act 10 of 1872) which thereafter read that
\n‘every complaint’ preferred to an officer in
\ncharge of a police station shall be reduced in
\nwriting. The word ‘complaint’ which occurred
\nin previous two Codes of 1861 and 1872 was
\ndeleted and in that place the word
\n‘information’ was used in the Codes of 1882 and
\n1898 which word is now used in Sections 154,
\n155, 157 and 190(c) of the present Code of 1973
\n(Act 2 of 1974). An overall reading of all the
\nCodes makes it clear that the condition which
\nis sine qua non for recording a first
\ninformation report is that there must be an
\ninformation and that information must disclose
\na cognizable offence.\n<\/p>\n
 33. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that
\nif any information disclosing a cognizable
\noffence is laid before an officer in charge of
\na police station satisfying the requirements of
\nSection 154(1) of the Code, the said police
\nofficer has no other option except to enter the
\nsubstance thereof in the prescribed form, that
\nis to say, to register a case on the basis of
\nsuch information.”\n<\/p>\n
 10. It is true that in the later part of the
\njudgment the Supreme Court had gone ahead and referred
\nto certain preliminary investigation not like an
\nenquiry or regular investigation in certain cases.
\nThe same is not relevant at this stage. A Division
\nBench of this court in the case of    Satish Kumar Goel
\nv. State and ors.   2000 II AD (Delhi 841 has also gone
\ninto the same controversy and the legal position
\ntherefore was enunciated to be:\n<\/p>\n
  “15. Thus, the legal position appears to be
\nthat where allegations made in the complaint
\nlodged before the police clearly and
\nspecifically disclose commission of a
\ncognizable offence, the officer in charge of the
\nconcerned police station is duty bound to
\nregister an FIR. However, where the
\ninformation recorded in the complaint is
\nuncertain, indistinct and not clearly expressed
\nwhich creates a doubt as to whether the
\ninformation laid before the in charge of the
\npolice station discloses commission of a
\ncognizable offence there from, some enquiry
\nshould proceed before the registration of an
\nFIR.”\n<\/p>\n
 11. More recently the Supreme Court in the case of
\n   All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees
\nUnion v. Union of India<\/a>   (1996) II SCC 582 also dealt
\nwith the same controversy. A similar request had been
\nmade for registration of first information report
\nagainst the Director of All India Institute of Medical
\nSciences for the offence punishable under Section 409
\nIndian Penal Code. The Supreme Court keeping in view
\nthe said controversy held:-\n<\/p>\n
 “4. When the information is laid with the
\npolice but no action in that behalf is taken,
\nthe complainant is given power under Section
\n190 read with Section 200 of the Code to lay
\nthe complaint before the Magistrate having
\njurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence
\nand the Magistrate is required to enquire into
\nthe complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the
\nCode. In case the Magistrate after recording
\nevidence finds a prima facie case, instead of
\nissuing process to the accused, he is empowered
\nto direct the police concerned to investigate
\ninto the offence under Chapter XII of the Code
\nand to submit a report. If he finds that the
\ncomplaint does not disclose any offence to take
\nfurther action, he is empowered to dismiss the
\ncomplaint under Section 203 of the Code. In
\ncase he finds that the complaint\/evidence
\nrecorded prima facie discloses an offence, he
\nis empowered to take cognizance of the offence
\nand would issue process to the accused.\n<\/p>\n
 5. In this case, the petitioner had not
\nadopted either of the procedure provided under
\nthe Code. As a consequence, without availing
\nof the above procedure, the petitioner is not
\nentitled to approach the High Court by filing a
\nwrit petition and seeking a direction to
\nconduct an investigation by the CBI which is
\nnot required to investigate into all or every
\noffence. The High Court, therefore, though for
\ndifferent reasons, was justified in refusing to
\ngrant the relief as sought for.”\n<\/p>\n
 12. Another Division Bench of this court in Criminal
\nWrit No. 1162\/2001 decided on 24th January, 2002 once
\nagain went ahead with the same controversy and held:-\n<\/p>\n
   “22. From the aforesaid precedents it is clear
\nthat following conclusions can conveniently be
\ndrawn: (i) whenever it is brought in writing
\nor otherwise that a cognizable offence has been
\ncommitted in terms of the decisions in the case
\nof Bhajan Lal (supra) a First Information
\nReport should be recorded (ii) If the
\ninformation given is not clear or creates a
\ndoubt as to whether it discloses a commission
\nof a cognizable offence some enquiry can
\nprecede before registration of the offence.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) in case of a complaint of such nature
\nmade against public servants it is doubtful or
\nsimilarly if it is found that ex facie there is
\nsome un-truth in the same, an enquiry can be
\nconducted before registration of the case (iv)
\nthe enquiry need not partake that of an
\ninvestigation. It only is a preliminary
\nenquiry that can be held.”\n<\/p>\n
 13. From the aforesaid it is clear that if the
\ninformation is not clear or creates a doubt as to
\nwhether it discloses commission of cognizable offence
\nor complaint is of such a nature particularly of
\ndoubtful nature that some enquiry should be held in
\nthat event some preliminary enquiry can take place but
\nit will not part-take that of an investigation. The
\ndecision in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) normally
\nwould be adhered to.\n<\/p>\n
 14. During the course of submissions our attention
\nhas been drawn to certain facts by either side. We
\ndeem it unnecessary to invoice the court into this
\ncontroversy because it is basically a matter to be
\ngone into by the investigating agency. However, it
\nwas pointed that in the medical report prepared by a
\njunior resident doctor following injuries had been
\nfound on the person of the deceased:-\n<\/p>\n
 “Clean lacerated wound approximately 5 cm at
\nRight side of the Forehead near Right eye brow
\nwith…..\n<\/p>\n
 Clean lacerated wound approximately 5 cm at
\nRight Side of left side of forehead in front of
\nleft Pinna  <\/p>\n
 Nose Bleed ++ <\/p>\n
 Ear Bleed++ <\/p>\n
 Dropping Eye Bal….\n<\/p>\n
Swelling at underside of scalp<\/p>\n
 ?? fire Arm injury”\n<\/p>\n
 15. It was urged that in suicide attempt a person
\nwould not be able to shoot on two sides of his
\nforehead. These are matters to be looked into by the
\ninvestigating agency but in the peculiar facts it
\nappears that keeping in view the nature of the
\ncomplaint, the first information report could well
\nhave been recorded because even if some preliminary
\nenquiry was to take place it should not have partake
\nthat of further investigation. At this stage,
\ntherefore, we deem it unnecessary to go further into
\nthe same but direct that (a) on basis of the complaint
\nof the petitioner addressed to the Commissioner of
\nPolice, a First Information Report should be recorded
\nat the concerned police station. We further direct
\nthat (b) since Delhi Police had already, as pointed in
\nthe reply, come to a conclusion and the first
\ninformation report is being recorded, at this stage
\ninvestigation should be handed over to the Central
\nBureau of Investigation (c) by way of abundant caution
\nnothing said herein should be taken as any expression
\nof opinion on the merits of the matter (d) the record
\nof the enquiry shall be handed over to Central Bureau
\nof Investigation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Pushpa Devi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 March, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 IVAD Delhi 505, 97 (2002) DLT 613 Author: V Aggarwal Bench: B Khan, V Aggarwal JUDGMENT V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. Mrs. Pushpa Devi (since deceased) had filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of […]<\/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-80276","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPushpa Devi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 March, 2002 - 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\/pushpa-devi-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pushpa Devi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpa-devi-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-march-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-22T06:45:41+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpa-devi-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-march-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpa-devi-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-march-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pushpa Devi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 March, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-22T06:45:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpa-devi-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-march-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2466,\"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\\\/pushpa-devi-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-march-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpa-devi-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-march-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpa-devi-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-march-2002\",\"name\":\"Pushpa Devi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-22T06:45:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpa-devi-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-march-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpa-devi-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-march-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpa-devi-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-march-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pushpa Devi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 March, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Pushpa Devi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 March, 2002 - 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\/pushpa-devi-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-march-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pushpa Devi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpa-devi-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-march-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-22T06:45:41+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpa-devi-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-march-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpa-devi-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-march-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pushpa Devi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 March, 2002","datePublished":"2002-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-22T06:45:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpa-devi-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-march-2002"},"wordCount":2466,"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\/pushpa-devi-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-march-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpa-devi-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-march-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpa-devi-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-march-2002","name":"Pushpa Devi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-22T06:45:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpa-devi-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-march-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpa-devi-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-march-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpa-devi-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-march-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pushpa Devi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 March, 2002"}]},{"@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\/80276","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=80276"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80276\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80276"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80276"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80276"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}