{"id":83320,"date":"2010-03-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumari-vs-balwan-singh-ors-on-8-march-2010"},"modified":"2016-07-21T19:46:05","modified_gmt":"2016-07-21T14:16:05","slug":"rakesh-kumari-vs-balwan-singh-ors-on-8-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumari-vs-balwan-singh-ors-on-8-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Rakesh Kumari vs Balwan Singh &amp; Ors on 8 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jammu High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rakesh Kumari vs Balwan Singh &amp; Ors on 8 March, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n \n HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU.            \nCr Rev No. 4 OF 2009 AND BA No.86 OF 2009    \nRakesh Kumari  \nPetitioners\nBalwan Singh &amp; ors. \nRespondent  \n!Ms. Seema Sharma, Advocate for Petitioner \n^M\/s G. S. Thakur and P.S. Parmar, Advocates for Respondents.Ms. Neeru Goswami,    \nDy.A.G. for the State\n\nMr. Justice J. P. Singh, Judge\nDate: 08.03.2010 \n:J U D G M E N T :\n<\/pre>\n<p>One Kundan Lal was killed on March 08, 2006 near Ban<br \/>\nGanga, Katra, Jammu. Dis-satisfied with the arrest of only two<br \/>\npersons as against seven stated to have been nominated by the<br \/>\npetitioner, his mother, as the assailants, she approached this<br \/>\nCourt by her Writ Petition seeking investigation into her son&#8217;s<br \/>\nMurder by the Central Bureau of Investigation or any other<br \/>\nindependent Investigating Agency.\n<\/p>\n<p>The judgment delivered by the Writ Court was modified by<br \/>\na Letters Patent Bench of this Court directing re-investigation<br \/>\ninto the petitioner&#8217;s son&#8217;s Murder by the Crime Branch of the<br \/>\nState Government. The re-investigation carried out, however,<br \/>\nreiterated involvement of only two persons.<br \/>\nDuring the currency of the trial before learned Sessions<br \/>\nJudge, Reasi, the prosecution moved an application seeking<br \/>\nimpleadment of Balwan Singh, Sohan Singh, Suram Singh,<br \/>\nVijay Singh and Narinder Singh, who had been named as<br \/>\nassailants by the petitioner Rakesh Kumari and her daughter<br \/>\nNeeru Devi in their deposition in the Court.<br \/>\nRejection of the State&#8217;s Application by the Trial Court has<br \/>\nlanded the petitioner again in this Court, where through this<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">2<\/span><br \/>\nCriminal Revision, she seeks setting aside of the Trial Court&#8217;s<br \/>\norder of January 01, 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe parties and gone through the records.<br \/>\nLearned Sessions Judge has rejected the State&#8217;s plea for<br \/>\nimpleadment of persons other than those put up for Trial, on<br \/>\ntwo grounds viz (1) The State&#8217;s request was pre-mature and (2)<br \/>\nthe statements of the petitioner and her daughter Neeru Devi,<br \/>\nwere not sufficient enough to justify impleadment of persons<br \/>\nother than those put up for trial in the case.<br \/>\nWhile holding that the statements of the petitioner and her<br \/>\ndaughter Neeru Devi were not sufficient to justify impleadment,<br \/>\nthe trial Court has referred to various aspects of the case to<br \/>\nsupport its conclusion. Statement made by the petitioner, which<br \/>\nwas sought to be supported by her daughter&#8217;s statement has<br \/>\nbeen found prima facie insufficient to justify impleadment in<br \/>\nview of the shortcomings noticed in the statements including<br \/>\nthose of petitioner&#8217;s admission of nominating only two\/three<br \/>\npersons as assailants, when she had informed the<br \/>\nSuperintendent of Police, immediately after the occurrence, on<br \/>\nphone, and the statement of Neeru Devi where, during her<br \/>\ncross-examination she had hinted at her reaching the place of<br \/>\noccurrence along with her mother when Kundan Lal&#8217;s dead<br \/>\nbody was lying near the wash room at the place of occurrence.<br \/>\nBefore dealing with the issue projected by Ms. Seema<br \/>\nSharma at the hearing of this Petition to urge that the Trial<br \/>\nCourt had misread and misconstrued the petitioner&#8217;s statement<br \/>\nbesides committing an error of law in rejecting the State&#8217;s<br \/>\nprayer for impleadment, regard needs to be had to the power of<br \/>\nthe Court to implead persons other than those put up for trial in<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">3<\/span><br \/>\nthe Court as contemplated by Section 351 of the Code of<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure, Svt. 1989.\n<\/p>\n<p>It would be profitable in this respect to refer to what was<br \/>\nheld by their Lordships of Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court of India in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/435907\/\">Kailash v. State of Rajasthan &amp;<\/a> anr., reported as 2008 AIR<br \/>\nSCW 1717, where dwelling on a similar provision in the Central<br \/>\nCode of Criminal Procedure, 1974, their Lordships held as<br \/>\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;A glance at these provisions would suggest that<br \/>\nduring the trial it has to appear from the evidence<br \/>\nthat a person not being an accused has<br \/>\ncommitted any offence for which such person<br \/>\ncould be tried together with the accused who are<br \/>\nalso being tried. The key words in this Section are<br \/>\n&#8220;it appears from the evidence&#8221;..&#8221; any person&#8221;*..<br \/>\n&#8220;has committed any offence&#8221;. It is not, therefore,<br \/>\nthat merely because some witnesses have<br \/>\nmentioned the name of such person or that there<br \/>\nis some material against that person, the<br \/>\ndiscretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. would be<br \/>\nused by the court. This is apart from the fact that<br \/>\nsuch person against whom such discretion is<br \/>\nused, should be a person who could be tried<br \/>\ntogether with the accused against whom the trial<br \/>\nis already going on. This Court has, time and<br \/>\nagain, declared that the discretion under Section<br \/>\n319 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised very sparingly<br \/>\nand with caution and only when the concerned<br \/>\ncourt is satisfied that some offence has been<br \/>\ncommitted by such person. This power has to be<br \/>\nessentially exercised only on the basis of the<br \/>\nevidence. It could, therefore, be used only after<br \/>\nthe legal evidence comes on record and from that<br \/>\nevidence it appears that the concerned person<br \/>\nhas committed an offence. The words &#8220;it appears&#8221;<br \/>\nare not to be read lightly. In that the Court would<br \/>\nhave to be circumspect while exercising this<br \/>\npower and would have to apply the caution which<br \/>\nthe language of the Section demands.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. In a reported decision in <a href=\"\/doc\/1817186\/\">Mohd. Shafi v.<br \/>\nMohd.Rafiq &amp; Anr.<\/a> {JT 2007 (5) SC 562}, to which<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">4<\/span><br \/>\none of us (Sinha,J.) was a party, this Court had<br \/>\nobserved in para 7 as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Before, thus, a trial Court seeks to take recourse<br \/>\nto the said provision, the requisite ingredients<br \/>\ntherefore must be fulfilled. Commission of an<br \/>\noffence by a person not facing trial, must,<br \/>\ntherefore, appear to the Court concerned. It<br \/>\ncannot be ipse dixit on the part of the court.<br \/>\nDiscretion in this behalf must be judicially<br \/>\nexercised. It is incumbent that the Court must<br \/>\narrive at its satisfaction in this behalf.&#8221;<br \/>\nIn the above case this Court referred to the<br \/>\ndecision reported in <a href=\"\/doc\/1496064\/\">Municipal Corporation of<br \/>\nDelhi v. Ram Krishan Rohtagi &amp; ors.<\/a> [(1983) 1<br \/>\nSCC 1] and highlighted the following remarks<br \/>\nmade in para 19 therein which are to the following<br \/>\neffect:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;19**.. But, we would hasten to add that this is<br \/>\nreally an extraordinary power which is conferred<br \/>\non the Court and should be used very sparingly<br \/>\nand only if compelling reasons exist for taking<br \/>\ncognizance against the other person against<br \/>\nwhom action has not been taken***..&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>It was further stated in para 13:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;***.. it is evident that before a court exercises<br \/>\nits discretionary jurisdiction in terms of Section<br \/>\n319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it must<br \/>\narrive at the satisfaction that there exists a<br \/>\npossibility that the accused so summoned in all<br \/>\nlikelihood would be convicted. Such satisfaction<br \/>\ncan be arrived at inter alia upon completion of the<br \/>\ncross-examination of the said witness. For the<br \/>\nsaid purpose, the Court concerned may also like<br \/>\nto consider other evidence.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>11. <a href=\"\/doc\/1087129\/\">In Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka<\/a> [(2004) 7<br \/>\nSCC 792] this Court, while relying on another<br \/>\nreported decision in <a href=\"\/doc\/1335414\/\">Michael Machado v. Central<br \/>\nBureau of Investigation<\/a> [(2000) 3 SCC 262] went<br \/>\non to hold that the power under Section 319,<br \/>\nCr.P.C. is discretionary and should be exercised<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">5<\/span><br \/>\nonly to achieve criminal justice and that the court<br \/>\nshould not turn against another person whenever<br \/>\nit comes across evidence connecting that other<br \/>\nperson also with the offence. The Court further<br \/>\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;**a judicial exercise is called for, keeping in<br \/>\nconspectus of the case, including the stage at<br \/>\nwhich the trial has already proceeded with the<br \/>\nquantum of evidence collected till then, and also<br \/>\nthe amount of time which the court had spent for<br \/>\ncollecting such evidence***&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The Court further observed:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The Court, while examining an application under<br \/>\nSection 319 Cr.P.C., has also to bear in mind that<br \/>\nthere is no compelling duty on the court to<br \/>\nproceed against other persons. In a nutshell, it<br \/>\nmeans that for exercise of discretion under<br \/>\nSection 319 Cr.P.C., all relevant factors, including<br \/>\nthe one noticed above, have to be kept in view<br \/>\nand an order is not required to be made<br \/>\nmechanically merely on the ground that some<br \/>\nevidence had come on record implicating the<br \/>\nperson sought to be added as an accused.&#8221;<br \/>\nPetitioner&#8217;s counsel&#8217;s plea that the trial Court had<br \/>\nmisconstrued and misquoted the statements of the petitioner<br \/>\nand her daughter is not borne out from the records.<br \/>\nThe findings recorded by the Trial Court in coming to the<br \/>\nconclusion that impleadment of persons other than those put up<br \/>\nfor trial was not warranted, too does not justify interference in<br \/>\nview of cogent reasons given by it in support therefor and the<br \/>\nlegal position referred to hereinabove.<br \/>\nThe Trial Court was required to assess whole of the<br \/>\nprosecution case as it stood produced before the Court at the<br \/>\ntime of consideration of the State&#8217;s request for impleadment and<br \/>\nnot a part thereof in isolation as suggested by the petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nlearned counsel, which it has done rightly in the present case.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>For all what has been said above, the approach adopted<br \/>\nby the trial Court in rejecting State&#8217;s Application being premature<br \/>\nand leaving the issue open for its re-consideration when<br \/>\nsome other evidence was brought on records by the<br \/>\nprosecution, does not justify interference in Revision,<br \/>\nadditionally because, the order passed by the trial Court<br \/>\ndeferring consideration of the issue till other prosecution<br \/>\nevidence was recorded, was interlocutory and not open to<br \/>\nRevision, in terms of Section 435 (4-a) of the Code of Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure.\n<\/p>\n<p>No ground for interference with the order impugned in the<br \/>\nRevision Petition has, thus, been made out.<br \/>\nThis Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.<br \/>\nBail Application No.86\/2009 shall, accordingly, stand<br \/>\ndisposed of as infructuous.\n<\/p>\n<p>( J. P. Singh )<br \/>\nJudge<br \/>\nJammu:\n<\/p>\n<p>08.03. 2010<br \/>\nRam Murti <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jammu High Court Rakesh Kumari vs Balwan Singh &amp; Ors on 8 March, 2010 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. Cr Rev No. 4 OF 2009 AND BA No.86 OF 2009 Rakesh Kumari Petitioners Balwan Singh &amp; ors. Respondent !Ms. Seema Sharma, Advocate for Petitioner ^M\/s G. S. Thakur and P.S. Parmar, Advocates [&hellip;]<\/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":[8,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-83320","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jammu-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Rakesh Kumari vs Balwan Singh &amp; Ors on 8 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/rakesh-kumari-vs-balwan-singh-ors-on-8-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rakesh Kumari vs Balwan Singh &amp; Ors on 8 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumari-vs-balwan-singh-ors-on-8-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-03-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-21T14:16:05+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumari-vs-balwan-singh-ors-on-8-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumari-vs-balwan-singh-ors-on-8-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rakesh Kumari vs Balwan Singh &amp; Ors on 8 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-21T14:16:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumari-vs-balwan-singh-ors-on-8-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1553,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jammu High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumari-vs-balwan-singh-ors-on-8-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumari-vs-balwan-singh-ors-on-8-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumari-vs-balwan-singh-ors-on-8-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Rakesh Kumari vs Balwan Singh &amp; Ors on 8 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-21T14:16:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumari-vs-balwan-singh-ors-on-8-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumari-vs-balwan-singh-ors-on-8-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumari-vs-balwan-singh-ors-on-8-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rakesh Kumari vs Balwan Singh &amp; Ors on 8 March, 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":"Rakesh Kumari vs Balwan Singh &amp; Ors on 8 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/rakesh-kumari-vs-balwan-singh-ors-on-8-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rakesh Kumari vs Balwan Singh &amp; Ors on 8 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumari-vs-balwan-singh-ors-on-8-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-21T14:16:05+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumari-vs-balwan-singh-ors-on-8-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumari-vs-balwan-singh-ors-on-8-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rakesh Kumari vs Balwan Singh &amp; Ors on 8 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-21T14:16:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumari-vs-balwan-singh-ors-on-8-march-2010"},"wordCount":1553,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jammu High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumari-vs-balwan-singh-ors-on-8-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumari-vs-balwan-singh-ors-on-8-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumari-vs-balwan-singh-ors-on-8-march-2010","name":"Rakesh Kumari vs Balwan Singh &amp; Ors on 8 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-21T14:16:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumari-vs-balwan-singh-ors-on-8-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumari-vs-balwan-singh-ors-on-8-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumari-vs-balwan-singh-ors-on-8-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rakesh Kumari vs Balwan Singh &amp; Ors on 8 March, 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\/83320","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=83320"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83320\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83320"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83320"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83320"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}