{"id":81183,"date":"2009-07-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dhan-son-of-shri-hazari-vs-wazir-chander-son-fo-shri-ramdhan-on-7-july-2009"},"modified":"2018-11-30T19:28:39","modified_gmt":"2018-11-30T13:58:39","slug":"ram-dhan-son-of-shri-hazari-vs-wazir-chander-son-fo-shri-ramdhan-on-7-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dhan-son-of-shri-hazari-vs-wazir-chander-son-fo-shri-ramdhan-on-7-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ram Dhan Son Of Shri Hazari vs Wazir Chander Son Fo Shri Ramdhan on 7 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Ram Dhan Son Of Shri Hazari vs Wazir Chander Son Fo Shri Ramdhan on 7 July, 2009<\/div>\n
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                      AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n\n                               Criminal Misc. No. 11145-M of 2008 (O\/M).\n                                          Date of Decision : July 07, 2009.\n\n\nRam Dhan son of Shri Hazari, r\/o Village and Post Office Sanghi, Tehsil and\nDistrict Rohtak, and others.\n                                                         ...... Petitioners.\n\n                                 Versus.\n\nWazir Chander son fo Shri Ramdhan r\/o Village Sanghi, Police Station\nSadar, Tehsil and District Rohtak.\n                                                        ..... Respondent.<\/pre>\n
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.\n<\/p>\n
Present:-    Mr. K.D.S. Hooda, Advocate,\n             for the petitioners.\n\n             Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate,\n             for the respondent.\n\nAUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).\n\n<\/pre>\n
             This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the<\/p>\n
petitioners, praying for quashing of complaint dated 02.09.2002 (Annexure-<\/p>\n
P-1) titled as Wazir Chand Versus Ram Dhan and others, under Section<\/p>\n
382\/392\/341\/506\/34 I.P.C., order dated 06.12.2006 (Annexure-P-4), passed<\/p>\n
by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, as well as order dated 20.09.2007<\/p>\n
(Annexure-P-7), passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, summoning the<\/p>\n
petitioners in complaint case and all subsequent proceedings arising there<\/p>\n
from.\n<\/p>\n
             Complaint dated 02.09.2002 (Annexure-P-1) was presented in<\/p>\n
the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak, by Wazir Chand-<\/p>\n
respondent against the petitioners for prosecuting them under Section
\n Criminal Misc. No.11145-M of 2008.                                      -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
382\/392\/341\/506\/34 I.P.C. The matter was referred to S.H.O. P.S. Sadar,<\/p>\n
Rohtak, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of a case and for<\/p>\n
investigation of the matter. F.I.R. No. 273 dated 16.09.2002 under Section<\/p>\n
382\/392\/341\/506\/34 I.P.C. P.S. Sadar, Rohtak, was registered.            On<\/p>\n
completion of the investigation, a cancellation report in the F.I.R. was<\/p>\n
submitted. The complainant filed a protest petition on notice being issued to<\/p>\n
him. The Court treated this protest petition filed by the complainant as a<\/p>\n
complaint and thereafter asked the complainant to lead preliminary evidence.<\/p>\n
The complainant appeared as P.W.1 and supported his allegations made in<\/p>\n
the complaint. Apart from his oral evidence, he proved copy of the F.I.R. as<\/p>\n
Ex. P.1, Jamabandi as Ex.P.2 and Khasra Girdwari as Ex. P.3. Order passed<\/p>\n
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, dated 15.03.2002 was also<\/p>\n
produced before the Court. On consideration of the evidence led by the<\/p>\n
complainant, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak, vide his order dated<\/p>\n
04.02.2005 (Annexure-P-3), dismissed the complaint.       Thereafter, Wazir<\/p>\n
Chand-respondent preferred a revision petition, which was decided vide<\/p>\n
order dated 06.12.2006 (Annexure-P-4), by the Additional Sessions Judge,<\/p>\n
Rohtak, wherein the Revisional Court came to a conclusion that the criminal<\/p>\n
court during inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was only required to see as<\/p>\n
to whether whatever has been stated by the witness, if believed, would make<\/p>\n
out an offence or not and the Magistrate could not proceed and adjudicate<\/p>\n
the matter upon merit of the complaint at the preliminary stage. It further<\/p>\n
came to a conclusion that the allegations made by Wazir Chand-<\/p>\n
complainant, prima-facie, made out an offence under Section 392\/447\/34<\/p>\n
I.P.C. against all the respondents\/petitioners.   Accordingly, order dated<\/p>\n
04.02.2005 (Annexure-P-3), passed by the Magistrate was set aside and the
\n Criminal Misc. No.11145-M of 2008.                                        -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
Magistrate was directed to proceed further in accordance with law and the<\/p>\n
complainant was directed to appear before the Magistrate on 11.02.2006.<\/p>\n
             On 11.02.2006, the complainant failed to appear before the<\/p>\n
Magistrate and after calling the case several times, the Court dismissed the<\/p>\n
complaint for non-prosecution.     Again a revision petition was preferred<\/p>\n
against the order dated 11.02.2006. This revision petition was decided vide<\/p>\n
order dated 22.02.2007 (Annexure-P-6) and this order was set aside and the<\/p>\n
complainant was directed to appear before the Magistrate on 16.03.2007.<\/p>\n
The complainant appeared before the Magistrate and thereafter vide order<\/p>\n
dated 20.09.2007 (Annexure-P-7), Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, relying upon<\/p>\n
earlier order dated 06.12.2006 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Revisional<\/p>\n
Court, wherein it was held that the allegations made by the complainant,<\/p>\n
prima-facie, makes out an offence punishable under Section 392\/447 read<\/p>\n
with Section 34 I.P.C., summoned the present petitioners to face trial.<\/p>\n
             Counsel for the petitioners submits that no prima-facie case was<\/p>\n
made out against the petitioners on the basis of allegations made in the<\/p>\n
complaint or on the basis of evidence, which has been led by the<\/p>\n
complainant before the Magistrate. He further submits that the Magistrate is<\/p>\n
required to apply his independent mind on the basis of evidence led by the<\/p>\n
complainant to come to a conclusion as to whether there is sufficient<\/p>\n
material on record to proceed against the petitioners. He submits that the<\/p>\n
evidence, which has been led by the complainant goes beyond doubt to show<\/p>\n
that the said complaint is false as the same is belied by documentary<\/p>\n
evidence produced by the complainant himself. He submits that the criminal<\/p>\n
proceeding, which have been initiated against the petitioners is an abuse of<\/p>\n
process of Court and has been initiated only to harass, humiliate and malign
\n Criminal Misc. No.11145-M of 2008.                                        -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
the petitioners. He, therefore, prays that the Court in the interest of justice<\/p>\n
must exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of<\/p>\n
process of the Court.\n<\/p>\n
             On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submits that the<\/p>\n
complaint clearly makes out an offence, which has been committed by the<\/p>\n
petitioners. He further submits that the statement given by the complainant<\/p>\n
before the Magistrate, supporting the allegations against the petitioners<\/p>\n
further fortifies the assertion made by the complainant in the complaint. He<\/p>\n
submits that the requirement of law is that the evidence, which has been<\/p>\n
produced on record during the examination of the complainant before the<\/p>\n
Magistrate has to only prima-facie establish the commission of an offence<\/p>\n
and has not to be tested on the anvil of proof to the extent of holding the<\/p>\n
accused guilty whether the accused were liable for the alleged offence,<\/p>\n
would not be relevant consideration for the Court at that stage.           The<\/p>\n
Magistrate was not holding a regular trial on the question of adjudication of<\/p>\n
the guilt of the accused at that stage. He on this basis submits that neither<\/p>\n
the complaint nor the order summoning the petitioners call for any<\/p>\n
interference by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
             The complaint preferred by Wazir Chand-respondent contained<\/p>\n
the averments that on 07.04.2002 at night he was in his fields for keeping a<\/p>\n
watch on his mustard crop and he slept there at about 09:00 P.M. All the<\/p>\n
accused came there at about 01:00 A.M. They were all armed with deadly<\/p>\n
weapons. Surinder son of Ram Lubhaya-petitioner No. 6 put his barrel of<\/p>\n
gun on the tempal of the complainant and threatened that if he raised any<\/p>\n
hue and cry, he would be done to death. Complainant due to fear acted<\/p>\n
accordingly. He heard the noise of some women reaping the mustard crop
\n Criminal Misc. No.11145-M of 2008.                                          -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
from his field. This process continued for three to four hours. The crop was<\/p>\n
thereafter loaded in a trolley and they left the spot. The allegation, therefore,<\/p>\n
of the complainant was that his mustard crop was harvested by the<\/p>\n
accused\/petitioners alongwith several women forcibly by giving threat to kill<\/p>\n
him. The complainant reported the matter to the police on 08.04.2002, but<\/p>\n
no action was taken by the police against the accused persons.<\/p>\n
             Section 200 Cr.P.C. provides that a Magistrate, who is taking<\/p>\n
cognizance of an offence on a complaint, shall examine upon oath the<\/p>\n
complainant and the witnesses present, if any. The substance of the said<\/p>\n
examination has to be reduced in writing and signed by the complainant and<\/p>\n
the witnesses and also by the Magistrate. Exceptions thereof have been<\/p>\n
carved out but that would not be applicable to the present case. Under<\/p>\n
Section 203 Cr.P.C., Magistrate, if after considering the statements on oath<\/p>\n
(if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry<\/p>\n
or investigation (if any) under section 202, is of opinion that there is no<\/p>\n
sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and for<\/p>\n
doing so, he is required briefly to record his reasons for so doing. However,<\/p>\n
as per Section 204 Cr.P.C., if in the opinion of the Magistrate, taking<\/p>\n
cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he can<\/p>\n
proceed as per procedure provided therein. What, therefore, comes out of<\/p>\n
the above is that, it is the opinion of the Magistrate with regard to<\/p>\n
sufficiency of the grounds for proceeding in the matter, which would<\/p>\n
determine as to whether the complaint would be dismissed or proceeded<\/p>\n
with further. The power to dismiss the complaint in a case the Magistrate<\/p>\n
formulates an opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding as<\/p>\n
provided under Section 203 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
 Criminal Misc. No.11145-M of 2008.                                       -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
            In the present case, therefore, for summoning the petitioners the<\/p>\n
statement, which has been made by the complainant alongwith documents<\/p>\n
produced in support thereof would be relevant. The facts mentioned above<\/p>\n
are not in dispute nor is it in dispute that the complainant, while making his<\/p>\n
statement before the Magistrate has placed on record during his preliminary<\/p>\n
evidence, F.I.R. No. 273 dated 16.09.2002 as Ex. P.1, copy of the jamabandi<\/p>\n
as Ex.P.2 and copy of the khasra girdwari as Ex. P.3 and also photocopy of<\/p>\n
order dated 15.03.2002, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, in<\/p>\n
the attachment proceedings. It could not be disputed by counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondent-complainant that jamabandi Ex.P.2 showed the land as Shamlat<\/p>\n
Pana Dudiyan Hasab Rasad Araji, which was attached vide rapat No. 95<\/p>\n
dated 01.12.2000, and the Tehsildar, Rohtak, was appointed as a Receiver<\/p>\n
and the said land was released from attachment, vide order dated<\/p>\n
15.03.2002, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, (photocopy of<\/p>\n
the order produced by the complainant before the Magistrate). He also could<\/p>\n
not dispute that there is no evidence, which could suggest that order dated<\/p>\n
15.03.2002 was implemented or the possession of the land was delivered to<\/p>\n
the complainant or anybody else after passing of order dated 15.03.2002. In<\/p>\n
view of the above, the land cannot be said to be in possession of the<\/p>\n
complainant at the time of alleged occurrence, which is dated 07.04.2002.<\/p>\n
Even assuming that order dated 15.03.2002 was indeed implemented<\/p>\n
immediately and the possession of the land was delivered to the petitioners,<\/p>\n
the period between handing over of the possession, which would obviously<\/p>\n
be on or after 15.03.2002 and the date of occurrence i.e. 07.04.2002, is<\/p>\n
hardly 23 days and within this short span of time, cultivation, sowing, and<\/p>\n
removal of the mustard crop by the accused persons, cannot be believed. It
\n Criminal Misc. No.11145-M of 2008.                                        -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
is a common knowledge that the mustard crop cannot be sown and reaped<\/p>\n
within one month. The allegations, therefore, made against the petitioners<\/p>\n
cannot be said to be correct. It cannot, therefore, be said that there is<\/p>\n
sufficient ground for the Magistrate, taking cognizance of the offence to<\/p>\n
form an opinion for proceeding in the case against the accused.            The<\/p>\n
Magistrate, while exercising powers is not merely required to tow the line of<\/p>\n
the complainant blindly, whatever he states in his preliminary evidence. The<\/p>\n
law enjoins the Magistrate to apply its mind and formulate an opinion, which<\/p>\n
should be based on preliminary evidence, which has been led by the<\/p>\n
complainant so as to say that there is sufficient ground for proceeding<\/p>\n
against the accused. If the Magistrate forms an opinion that there is no<\/p>\n
sufficient ground for proceeding, he has been empowered under Section 203<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. to dismiss the complaint and in doing so, he is required to briefly<\/p>\n
record his reasons.\n<\/p>\n
             In the present case, when the preliminary evidence led by the<\/p>\n
complainant itself on     evaluation, leads only to a conclusion that the<\/p>\n
allegations made by the complainant are not true, the continuation of such<\/p>\n
proceedings before the Magistrate would be an abuse of process of Court.<\/p>\n
The Magistrate, therefore, is required to apply his independent mind to the<\/p>\n
preliminary evidence led by the complainant and then form an opinion as to<\/p>\n
whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding further in the matter or not.<\/p>\n
             Present is a case where the preliminary evidence led by the<\/p>\n
complainant and that too documentary, clearly leads to only one conclusion<\/p>\n
that the same is not true. The complaint and preliminary evidence led by the<\/p>\n
complainant, when considered show that the allegations are absurd and<\/p>\n
inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
\n Criminal Misc. No.11145-M of 2008.                                         -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against<\/p>\n
the accused\/petitioners.   These proceedings are manifestly initiated with<\/p>\n
malafide and without any basis.         It is a fit case where this Court should<\/p>\n
exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of<\/p>\n
process of Court. Allowing continuation of such proceedings in the Court,<\/p>\n
would be encouraging fictitious litigation, which would be against the basic<\/p>\n
canons of justice, which stand for truth and truth alone must prevail.<\/p>\n
             Thus, to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of<\/p>\n
process of Court, the present petition is allowed.     Order dated 20.09.2007<\/p>\n
(Annexure-P-7), passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak,<\/p>\n
summoning the accused\/petitioners to face trial under Section 392\/447\/34<\/p>\n
I.P.C., is   hereby    quashed    and     the   complaint    dated 02.09.2002<\/p>\n
(Annexure-P-1) is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                        (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
\n                                                 JUDGE
\nJuly 07, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
sjks.\n<\/p>\n
Whether referred to the Reporter : Yes \/ No.\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Ram Dhan Son Of Shri Hazari vs Wazir Chander Son Fo Shri Ramdhan on 7 July, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 11145-M of 2008 (O\/M). Date of Decision : July 07, 2009. Ram Dhan son of Shri Hazari, r\/o Village and Post Office […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-81183","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRam Dhan Son Of Shri Hazari vs Wazir Chander Son Fo Shri Ramdhan on 7 July, 2009 - 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\/ram-dhan-son-of-shri-hazari-vs-wazir-chander-son-fo-shri-ramdhan-on-7-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Dhan Son Of Shri Hazari vs Wazir Chander Son Fo Shri Ramdhan on 7 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dhan-son-of-shri-hazari-vs-wazir-chander-son-fo-shri-ramdhan-on-7-july-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-30T13:58:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-dhan-son-of-shri-hazari-vs-wazir-chander-son-fo-shri-ramdhan-on-7-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-dhan-son-of-shri-hazari-vs-wazir-chander-son-fo-shri-ramdhan-on-7-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Dhan Son Of Shri Hazari vs Wazir Chander Son Fo Shri Ramdhan on 7 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-30T13:58:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-dhan-son-of-shri-hazari-vs-wazir-chander-son-fo-shri-ramdhan-on-7-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2138,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-dhan-son-of-shri-hazari-vs-wazir-chander-son-fo-shri-ramdhan-on-7-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-dhan-son-of-shri-hazari-vs-wazir-chander-son-fo-shri-ramdhan-on-7-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-dhan-son-of-shri-hazari-vs-wazir-chander-son-fo-shri-ramdhan-on-7-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Ram Dhan Son Of Shri Hazari vs Wazir Chander Son Fo Shri Ramdhan on 7 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-30T13:58:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-dhan-son-of-shri-hazari-vs-wazir-chander-son-fo-shri-ramdhan-on-7-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-dhan-son-of-shri-hazari-vs-wazir-chander-son-fo-shri-ramdhan-on-7-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-dhan-son-of-shri-hazari-vs-wazir-chander-son-fo-shri-ramdhan-on-7-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Dhan Son Of Shri Hazari vs Wazir Chander Son Fo Shri Ramdhan on 7 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Ram Dhan Son Of Shri Hazari vs Wazir Chander Son Fo Shri Ramdhan on 7 July, 2009 - 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\/ram-dhan-son-of-shri-hazari-vs-wazir-chander-son-fo-shri-ramdhan-on-7-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Dhan Son Of Shri Hazari vs Wazir Chander Son Fo Shri Ramdhan on 7 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dhan-son-of-shri-hazari-vs-wazir-chander-son-fo-shri-ramdhan-on-7-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-30T13:58:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dhan-son-of-shri-hazari-vs-wazir-chander-son-fo-shri-ramdhan-on-7-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dhan-son-of-shri-hazari-vs-wazir-chander-son-fo-shri-ramdhan-on-7-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Dhan Son Of Shri Hazari vs Wazir Chander Son Fo Shri Ramdhan on 7 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-30T13:58:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dhan-son-of-shri-hazari-vs-wazir-chander-son-fo-shri-ramdhan-on-7-july-2009"},"wordCount":2138,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dhan-son-of-shri-hazari-vs-wazir-chander-son-fo-shri-ramdhan-on-7-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dhan-son-of-shri-hazari-vs-wazir-chander-son-fo-shri-ramdhan-on-7-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dhan-son-of-shri-hazari-vs-wazir-chander-son-fo-shri-ramdhan-on-7-july-2009","name":"Ram Dhan Son Of Shri Hazari vs Wazir Chander Son Fo Shri Ramdhan on 7 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-30T13:58:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dhan-son-of-shri-hazari-vs-wazir-chander-son-fo-shri-ramdhan-on-7-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dhan-son-of-shri-hazari-vs-wazir-chander-son-fo-shri-ramdhan-on-7-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dhan-son-of-shri-hazari-vs-wazir-chander-son-fo-shri-ramdhan-on-7-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Dhan Son Of Shri Hazari vs Wazir Chander Son Fo Shri Ramdhan on 7 July, 2009"}]},{"@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\/81183","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=81183"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81183\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=81183"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=81183"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=81183"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}