{"id":92358,"date":"2007-10-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/victor-auxilium-vs-state-on-6-october-2007"},"modified":"2018-05-16T09:07:02","modified_gmt":"2018-05-16T03:37:02","slug":"victor-auxilium-vs-state-on-6-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/victor-auxilium-vs-state-on-6-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"Victor Auxilium vs State on 6 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Victor Auxilium vs State on 6 October, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n                              \n                    DATED :   06.10.2007\n                              \n                            CORAM\n                              \n           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU\n                              \n     CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION Nos.4332 and 8922 of 2007\n\n\n\n\n\n1.  Victor Auxilium\n\n2.  Susainathan       \t\t\t\t ..Petitioners in Crl.OP.4332\/2007\n\nAuxillia            \t\t\t\t ..Petitioner in Crl.OP.8922\/2007\n\n\n         Vs\n\n\n1.  State,\n    rep.by the Assistant Commissioner of Police\n    W-19 All Women Police Station\n    Adyar\n    Chennai 600 020.\n\n2.  V.Florin Vinolia            \t\t ..Respondents in both petitions\n\n\n\n\n          Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n\n\n\n\nFor petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.4332\/2007 : Mr.A.Raghunathan for M\/s.S.S.Jayanthi.\n\nFor petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8922\/2007  : Mrs.V.Uma Shankari\n\nFor respondent 1 in both petitions      : Mr.A.Saravanan, Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side).\n\nFor respondent 2 in both petitions      : Mr.Ramesh, for M\/s.Ram & Ram\n\n\n\n                          O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
           These  petitions have been filed to call for  the<\/p>\n
records   in  C.C.No.3819  of  2006  on  the  file   of   IV<\/p>\n
Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, and to quash the<\/p>\n
same.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           2. For the sake of convenience, the status of the<\/p>\n
parties,  as mentioned in Crl.O.P.No.4332 of 2007, would  be<\/p>\n
referred  and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8922 of  2007  by<\/p>\n
name Auxillia.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          3. The facts, in a nutshell, are as under :<\/p>\n
           3.1. First petitioner is son of second petitioner<\/p>\n
and  second respondent is the de facto complainant,  who  is<\/p>\n
wife  of  first petitioner. The marriage of first petitioner<\/p>\n
and  second  respondent  was  celebrated  on  22.06.2000  in<\/p>\n
St.Theresas Church, Trichy.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           3.2.  At  the time of marriage, all  the  accused<\/p>\n
demanded  80 sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.6.00 lakhs  in<\/p>\n
cash  towards  dowry, however, the parents of the  de  facto<\/p>\n
complainant offered 50 sovereigns of gold jewels, besides  a<\/p>\n
sum  of  Rs.1.00  lakh in cash.  The couple  was  living  at<\/p>\n
Thiruvanmiyur in Chennai.  First accused left for  Singapore<\/p>\n
and  returned back after one year.  In August, 2001, he took<\/p>\n
the  de  facto complainant to Singapore.  While the  spouses<\/p>\n
were  at  Singapore,  second and third  accused  made  phone<\/p>\n
calls  to  fist accused, by means of which the  attitude  of<\/p>\n
first  accused changed suddenly and he started  demanding  a<\/p>\n
sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs from the de facto complainant, stating<\/p>\n
that if she did not bring Rs.10.00 lakhs, he would send  her<\/p>\n
back  to her parents.  While the de facto complainant  asked<\/p>\n
her  parents  over phone, they replied that they  could  not<\/p>\n
arrange  Rs.10.00  lakhs  at  once,  which  information  was<\/p>\n
conveyed  to first accused, for which he replied  that  they<\/p>\n
had  to  demand Rs.10.00 lakhs even at the time of marriage,<\/p>\n
which they did not, and further asked her to arrange for the<\/p>\n
amount.  Thereafter, first accused called second accused  to<\/p>\n
Singapore  and  sent the de facto complainant  with  him  to<\/p>\n
India  on 07.02.2002.  Further, he proceeded to arrange  for<\/p>\n
cancellation  of  visa  for  the  de  facto  complainant  on<\/p>\n
20.03.2002,  consequent upon which it was  cancelled.   When<\/p>\n
the de facto complainant asked second and third accused over<\/p>\n
phone  to arrange for re-union, they told her that  only  if<\/p>\n
she arranged Rs.10.00 lakhs, they would make efforts for re-<\/p>\n
union  and  disconnected  the conversation.  Second  accused<\/p>\n
contacted  the  de facto complainant in April,2002,  stating<\/p>\n
that  first  accused was coming down to India in that  month<\/p>\n
and  Rs.10.00 lakhs might be kept ready and only, thereupon,<\/p>\n
they would send her with first accused to Singapore, if not,<\/p>\n
they  would celebrate second marriage to him and settle them<\/p>\n
at  Singapore  itself.  The de facto complainant  approached<\/p>\n
third  accused at once and asked her to take steps  for  re-<\/p>\n
union,  whereby  she  also  told  that  only  if  de   facto<\/p>\n
complainant paid Rs.10.00 lakhs, they could do something.<\/p>\n
           3.3. On 24.04.2005, second accused contacted  the<\/p>\n
father  of de facto complainant over phone and asked him  to<\/p>\n
pay  Rs.10.00  lakhs,  since first accused  had  arrived  in<\/p>\n
India.   Thereafter, the de facto complainant came  to  know<\/p>\n
that  first  accused  contacted  second  marriage  with  one<\/p>\n
Kavitha at Singapore.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          3.4. First respondent police, after investigation,<\/p>\n
laid  charge  sheet  against the accused  for  the  offences<\/p>\n
punishable under Sections 498A and 494 IPC and Section 4  of<\/p>\n
Dowry Prohibition Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          3.5. On 02.02.2007, the trial Court framed charges<\/p>\n
against  the  accused.   While all the  three  accused  were<\/p>\n
charged  under  Section  498A IPC and  Section  4  of  Dowry<\/p>\n
Prohibition  Act,  the offence under  Section  494  IPC  was<\/p>\n
framed against first accused alone.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           4.  The contention of the petitioners in both the<\/p>\n
petitions  are  two  folded, namely,  (i)  first  respondent<\/p>\n
police  has  no territorial jurisdiction to investigate  the<\/p>\n
case, as the allegations in the F.I.R. would clearly portray<\/p>\n
that  every stage of offence was held in Singapore,  besides<\/p>\n
the reason being that though the marriage was celebrated  in<\/p>\n
Trichy  and first accused was also a resident of Trichy,  he<\/p>\n
left  for Singapore immediately after the marriage and  both<\/p>\n
the  spouses  were  leading married life  in  Singapore  for<\/p>\n
sometime,  particularly, during when the alleged demand  was<\/p>\n
made,  and  (ii) as per Section 198 (c) Cr.P.C.,  where  the<\/p>\n
person aggrieved by an offence punishable under Section  494<\/p>\n
or  495 IPC is wife, complaint may be made on her behalf  by<\/p>\n
her  father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter or  by<\/p>\n
her  father’s  or mother’s brother or sister and  since  the<\/p>\n
offence  under  Section  494  IPC  is  not  expected  to  be<\/p>\n
investigated by police, the de facto complainant should have<\/p>\n
laid   a   private   complaint  before  the   jurisdictional<\/p>\n
Magistrate  Court for necessary relief and clubbing  of  the<\/p>\n
offence under Section 494 along with other offences in  this<\/p>\n
matter is not legally permissible, whereby  the accused  are<\/p>\n
prejudiced.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           5. Besides the above said grounds, the petitioner<\/p>\n
Auxillia, in her petition, has taken another ground  to  the<\/p>\n
effect  that she was, in no way, connected with the  alleged<\/p>\n
demand of dowry and jewels by first and second accused,  as,<\/p>\n
she,  right from the date of her marriage or even  from  the<\/p>\n
marriage of the de facto complainant with first accused  was<\/p>\n
living  away  from the family and that she never  interfered<\/p>\n
with  the  affairs of the de facto complainant and that  she<\/p>\n
was  an  utter  stranger to the domestic  affairs  of  first<\/p>\n
accused  and,  hence, she had not played  any  role  in  the<\/p>\n
matter,  so  as to attract the provisions of IPC  and  Dowry<\/p>\n
Prohibition Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           6. As far as the first point, namely, territorial<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of first respondent is concerned, it  was  much<\/p>\n
said  that  the averments in the complaint would clinchingly<\/p>\n
show  that in Chennai, no part of cause of action arose  and<\/p>\n
no  police  station or any Court in Chennai  could  exercise<\/p>\n
jurisdiction over the matter.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          7. In my view, the said contention is not tenable,<\/p>\n
for the reason that a reading of the complaint, charge sheet<\/p>\n
and  the  charges framed by the Court as well would  vividly<\/p>\n
indicate  that  major portions of cause of  action  for  the<\/p>\n
complaint have arisen in Chennai, which are being enumerated<\/p>\n
as below:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           (a)  At the time of marriage, there was a  demand<\/p>\n
for  Rs.6.00  lakhs  in  cash  and  80  sovereigns  of  gold<\/p>\n
jewellery,  for  which the parents of de  facto  complainant<\/p>\n
offered  50  sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.1.00  lakh  in<\/p>\n
cash.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            (b)  In  the  year  2001,  while  the  de  facto<\/p>\n
complainant was at Singapore with first accused, second  and<\/p>\n
third  accused  contacted first accused  from  Chennai  over<\/p>\n
phone,  pursuant  to which, first accused demanded  Rs.10.00<\/p>\n
lakhs as dowry from the de facto complainant.<\/p>\n
           (c)  After the de facto complainant was sent from<\/p>\n
Singapore  with second accused by first accused,  while  she<\/p>\n
was at Chennai, second accused told the de facto complainant<\/p>\n
in  April,2002,  that first accused was coming in that month<\/p>\n
and only if she arranged Rs.10.00 lakhs, they would send her<\/p>\n
to  Singapore  with  first  accused,  otherwise  they  would<\/p>\n
perform  second marriage to first accused.  Thereafter,  the<\/p>\n
de  facto complainant went to the house of third accused  at<\/p>\n
Shenoynagar  in Chennai and asked her to do favour  to  her,<\/p>\n
for which third accused replied that they would not take any<\/p>\n
steps, if Rs.10.00 lakhs was not paid.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           (d) On 24.04.2005, second accused told the father<\/p>\n
of  the de facto complainant that on that day itself,  first<\/p>\n
accused  came  to  India and only if the demanded  dowry  in<\/p>\n
question  was paid, his daughter would lead a happy  married<\/p>\n
life.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           8.  The above said allegations would clearly show<\/p>\n
that  sufficient portions of cause of action had taken place<\/p>\n
at Chennai.  Under the circumstances, the contention that no<\/p>\n
cause  of  action  has  arisen  at  Chennai  would  not   be<\/p>\n
countenanced.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           9.  Learned  Government Advocate (Criminal  Side)<\/p>\n
would  draw  attention of this Court to a  decision  of  the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble  Supreme Court in Satvinder Kaur v.  State  (Govt.of<\/p>\n
Delhi)  and<\/a>  another, 1999 Supreme Court Cases  (Cri)  1503,<\/p>\n
wherein it has been held that at the stage of investigation,<\/p>\n
no  question of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would<\/p>\n
arise,  on the ground that the investigating officer has  no<\/p>\n
territorial jurisdiction and after investigation is over, if<\/p>\n
the investigating officer arrives at a conclusion that cause<\/p>\n
of  action for lodging the F.I.R. has not arisen within  his<\/p>\n
territorial jurisdiction, then, he is required to  submit  a<\/p>\n
report  accordingly under Section 170 Cr.P.C. and to forward<\/p>\n
the  case  to  the   Magistrate to take  cognizance  of  the<\/p>\n
offence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           10.  In the said decision, the Supreme Court  has<\/p>\n
elaborately  dealt  with  the statutory  provisions  on  the<\/p>\n
subject and laid down a law to be followed by the Courts  of<\/p>\n
the country. Further, after analysing the import of Sections<\/p>\n
177 and 178 Cr.P.C., it is observed therein as under :<\/p>\n
                “A reading of Sections 177 and 178
\n          Cr.P.C.   would  make  it   clear   that
\n          Section   177  provides  for  “ordinary”
\n          place  of  enquiry  or  trial.   Section
\n          178,  inter alia, provides for place  of
\n          enquiry  or  trial when it is  uncertain
\n          in  which  of  several  local  areas  an
\n          offence  was  committed  or  where   the
\n          offence  was  committed  partly  in  one
\n          local  area  and partly in  another  and
\n          where it consisted of several acts  done
\n          in  different local areas, it  could  be
\n          enquired  into  or  tried  by  a   court
\n          having  jurisdiction over  any  of  such
\n          local  areas.   Hence, at the  stage  of
\n          investigation, it cannot  be  held  that
\n          the   SHO   does  not  have  territorial
\n          jurisdiction to investigate the crime.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           11.  The  Apex  Court also dealt with  the  power<\/p>\n
exercisable  by  High  Court, conferred  under  Section  482<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. and rendered findings in the following terms :<\/p>\n
               “The legal position is well settled
\n         that  if  an  offence  is  disclosed  the
\n         court  will  not normally interfere  with
\n         an  investigation into the case and  will
\n         permit  investigation  into  the  offence
\n         alleged  to  be completed.  If  the  FIR,
\n         prima facie, discloses the commission  of
\n         an  offence, the court does not  normally
\n         stop  the  investigation, for, to  do  so
\n         would  be to trench upon the lawful power
\n         of   the   police  to  investigate   into
\n         cognizable offences.  It is also  settled
\n         by  a  long  course of decisions  of  the
\n         Supreme  Court  that for the  purpose  of
\n         exercising  its power under  Section  482
\n         Cr.P.C.  to  quash an FIR or a complaint,
\n         the  High  Court  would have  to  proceed
\n         entirely  on the basis of the allegations
\n         made  in  the complaint or the  documents
\n         accompanying the same per se; it  has  to
\n         no    jurisdiction   to    examine    the
\n         correctness   or   otherwise    of    the
\n         allegations.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           12. Following the dictum laid down by the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court,  in this case, it is to be held that the requests  of<\/p>\n
the  petitioners are not at all supported by  settled  legal<\/p>\n
positions.   In  the  first  place,  ample  averments   with<\/p>\n
reference to the jurisdiction point of view are available in<\/p>\n
the complaint itself, on the basis of which charge sheet was<\/p>\n
laid by the police and charges were framed by the Court.  In<\/p>\n
another  angle, even if the allegations do not  satisfy  the<\/p>\n
Court  as to the point of territorial jurisdiction, the  law<\/p>\n
does  not  permit for quashing of the proceedings  in  toto,<\/p>\n
but,  provides for a direction to the investigating  officer<\/p>\n
to  submit a report under Section 170 Cr.P.C. and to forward<\/p>\n
the  case  to  the  Magistrate, who  is  empowered  to  take<\/p>\n
cognizance of the offence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           13. In so far as the first contention with regard<\/p>\n
to   the   territorial  jurisdiction   is   concerned,   the<\/p>\n
petitioners  have  to be out of Court and,  as  regards  the<\/p>\n
charge under Section 494 IPC, it is the outcry of the  first<\/p>\n
petitioner that the police have no power to investigate, but<\/p>\n
the law is otherwise.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           14.  It is true, as mentioned in Section 198  (c)<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C.,  if  the  aggrieved person is the wife,  her  close<\/p>\n
relative  has  to  file  a  private  complaint  before   the<\/p>\n
jurisdictional  Magistrate and, since it is a non-cognizable<\/p>\n
offence,  police are precluded from investigating the  case.<\/p>\n
But,  Section 155 (4) Cr.P.C. contemplates that where a case<\/p>\n
relates  to  two or more offences of which at least  one  is<\/p>\n
cognizable,  the  case shall be deemed to  be  a  cognizable<\/p>\n
offence,  notwithstanding that the other offences  are  non-<\/p>\n
cognizable.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           15.  While  the intent of the said  provision  is<\/p>\n
taken  for consideration with respect to the request of  the<\/p>\n
petitioners, though the offence under Section 494 ICP  is  a<\/p>\n
non-cognizable  one, since the police have investigated  the<\/p>\n
same  along  with other cognizable offences  viz.,  Sections<\/p>\n
498A  IPC and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, it is to be deemed<\/p>\n
to  be a cognizable offence and the hands of police are  not<\/p>\n
tied in this regard and the police can very well investigate<\/p>\n
the  offence  under Section 494 IPC also, along  with  other<\/p>\n
offences.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          16. The contention of the petitioner Auxillia that<\/p>\n
she was away from the family of first and second accused and<\/p>\n
that  she  had no links with them as regards the  demand  of<\/p>\n
dowry  from  the  de facto complainant and,  therefore,  she<\/p>\n
should  be absolved from the liability, in my view,  suffers<\/p>\n
outright  rejection. As already stated, the  allegations  in<\/p>\n
the  First  Information Report go to the effect  that  third<\/p>\n
accused,   namely,  petitioner  Auxillia   also   played   a<\/p>\n
considerable role in the demand of dowry from  the  de  fact<\/p>\n
complainant and there is no circumstance to infer  that  she<\/p>\n
was  away  from  the  family affairs  of  first  and  second<\/p>\n
accused.   She  has got every opportunity to  establish  her<\/p>\n
contention  at  the  time  of trial  and  quashment  of  the<\/p>\n
proceedings against her cannot be thought of, at this stage.<\/p>\n
           17.  For  the foregoing reasons, the irresistible<\/p>\n
conclusion, to be arrived at by this Court, is, rejection of<\/p>\n
contentions   of  the  petitioners  and  the  complaint   is<\/p>\n
exhaustive   in  nature  as  to  the  point  of  territorial<\/p>\n
jurisdiction  and criminality of all the accused.  As  such,<\/p>\n
these  petitions are dismissed.  Consequently, the connected<\/p>\n
Criminal  M.P.Nos.1 and 4 of of 2007 in both  the  petitions<\/p>\n
are closed.\n<\/p>\n
dixit<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.\tThe Assistant Commissioner of Police,
\n   \tW-19 All Women Police Station,
\n   \tAdyar,
\n   \tChennai 600 020.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe Public Prosecutor,
\n   \tHigh Court,
\n   \tMadras.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Victor Auxilium vs State on 6 October, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06.10.2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION Nos.4332 and 8922 of 2007 1. Victor Auxilium 2. Susainathan ..Petitioners in Crl.OP.4332\/2007 Auxillia ..Petitioner in Crl.OP.8922\/2007 Vs 1. State, rep.by the Assistant Commissioner 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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-92358","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVictor Auxilium vs State on 6 October, 2007 - 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\/victor-auxilium-vs-state-on-6-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Victor Auxilium vs State on 6 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/victor-auxilium-vs-state-on-6-october-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-16T03:37:02+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\\\/victor-auxilium-vs-state-on-6-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/victor-auxilium-vs-state-on-6-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Victor Auxilium vs State on 6 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-16T03:37:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/victor-auxilium-vs-state-on-6-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2304,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/victor-auxilium-vs-state-on-6-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/victor-auxilium-vs-state-on-6-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/victor-auxilium-vs-state-on-6-october-2007\",\"name\":\"Victor Auxilium vs State on 6 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-16T03:37:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/victor-auxilium-vs-state-on-6-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/victor-auxilium-vs-state-on-6-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/victor-auxilium-vs-state-on-6-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Victor Auxilium vs State on 6 October, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Victor Auxilium vs State on 6 October, 2007 - 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\/victor-auxilium-vs-state-on-6-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Victor Auxilium vs State on 6 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/victor-auxilium-vs-state-on-6-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-16T03:37:02+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\/victor-auxilium-vs-state-on-6-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/victor-auxilium-vs-state-on-6-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Victor Auxilium vs State on 6 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-16T03:37:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/victor-auxilium-vs-state-on-6-october-2007"},"wordCount":2304,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/victor-auxilium-vs-state-on-6-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/victor-auxilium-vs-state-on-6-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/victor-auxilium-vs-state-on-6-october-2007","name":"Victor Auxilium vs State on 6 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-16T03:37:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/victor-auxilium-vs-state-on-6-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/victor-auxilium-vs-state-on-6-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/victor-auxilium-vs-state-on-6-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Victor Auxilium vs State on 6 October, 2007"}]},{"@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\/92358","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=92358"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92358\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=92358"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=92358"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=92358"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}