{"id":92482,"date":"2010-04-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-april-2010"},"modified":"2015-12-16T09:19:15","modified_gmt":"2015-12-16T03:49:15","slug":"raju-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Raju vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Raju vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 April, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: Shrihari P. Davare<\/div>\n
                                1\n\n\n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY,\n                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n              CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1077 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     1.   Raju S\/o Nilaman Ade \n          Age : 28 years, Occ : Agri., \n          R\/o Takli Tanda, Tq.Khultabad,\n          Dist.Aurangabad. \n\n\n\n\n                                     \n     2.   Deubai W\/o Nilaman Ade\n          Age : 57 years, Occ : Agri.,\n          R\/o As above. \n\n\n\n\n                           \n     3.   Kanhiram S\/o Nilaman Ade \n          Age : 37 years, Occ : Agri., \n                 \n          R\/o As above. \n\n     4.   Sangita W\/o Kanhiram Ade \n                \n          Age : 25 years, Occ : Agri.,\n          R\/o As above. \n\n     5.   Santosh S\/o Nilaman Ade\n      \n\n          Age :   years, Occ : Agri., \n          R\/o As above. \n   \n\n\n\n     6.   Sunita W\/o Pandit Rathod\n          Age :    yars, Occ : \n          R\/o As above. \n\n\n\n\n\n     7.   Latabai W\/o Santosh Ade\n          Age :   years, Occ : \n          R\/o As above. \n\n     8.   Saidas S\/o        Rathod \n\n\n\n\n\n          Age :  years, Occ : \n          R\/o As above. \n\n     9.   Parubai W\/o Saidas Ade \n          Age   years, Occ : \n          R\/o As above. \n                                                        ..Applicants \n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:51:39 :::\n                                     2\n\n               V\/s \n\n     1.   The State of Maharashtra\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n     2.   Kantabai W\/o Raju Ade\n          Age :   years, Occ : Nil, \n\n\n\n\n                                         \n          R\/o Takli Tanda, Tq.Khultabad,\n          Dist.Aurangabad.\n                                                           ..Respondents\n                       .....\n<\/pre>\n
     Mr.Deepak S. Manorkar, Advocate for applicants.
\n     Mr.D.V. Tele, APP for respondent no.1.
\n     Mr.Abhisek Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent no.2.\n<\/p>\n
                          …..\n<\/p>\n
                          (CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J.)
\n                    ig    DATE OF JUDGMENT : 19th April, 2010.
\n     ORAL JUDGMENT :\n<\/p>\n
     1.   Rule.   Rule   made   returnable   forthwith.   With   the <\/p>\n
     consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is <\/p>\n
     taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.\n<\/p>\n
     2.   This   is   an   application   preferred   by   applicants <\/p>\n
     (orig.accused) seeking quashing and setting aside the <\/p>\n
     proceedings   of   R.C.C.   No.368\/2009   pending   before <\/p>\n
     learned   Judicial   Magistrate,   First   Class,   Khultabad <\/p>\n
     arising   out   of   C.R.   No.24\/2008   registered   with <\/p>\n
     Khultabad   police   station   for   the   offences   punishable <\/p>\n
     under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal <\/p>\n
     Code   and   also   under   Sections   3   and   4   of   Dowry <\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:39 :::<\/span>
\n                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
     Prohibition Act.\n<\/p>\n
     3.   At   the   outset,   marriage   between   applicant   no.1-\n<\/p>\n
     Raju Nilaman Ade and complainant Sau.Kantabai Raju Ade <\/p>\n
     was   solemnised   on   27th   April,   2000   and   thereafter, <\/p>\n
     complainant   Kantabai   went   to   matrimonial   home   along <\/p>\n
     with Raju Ade for cohabitation purpose. However, since <\/p>\n
     the said complainant Kantabai was allegedly subjected <\/p>\n
     to   cruelty   and   ill-treatment   and   also   since   unlawful <\/p>\n
     demand   of   money   was   allegedly   made   to   her   by <\/p>\n
     applicants, she filed complaint on 16.02.2008 against <\/p>\n
     applicants   herein,   and   accordingly,   C.R.   No.24\/2008 <\/p>\n
     was   registered   with   Khultabad   police   station   under <\/p>\n
     sections   498-A,   323,   504   r\/w   34   of   the   Indian   Penal <\/p>\n
     Code.   Applicant   no.1   was   arrested   on   13.03.2008   and <\/p>\n
     later on he was released on bail and other applicants <\/p>\n
     were   granted   anticipatory   bail.   After   completion   of <\/p>\n
     investigation,   the   charge   sheet   came   to   be   filed <\/p>\n
     against applicants under sections 498-A, 323, 504 r\/w <\/p>\n
     34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 <\/p>\n
     of  Dowry  Prohibition  Act.  The  said  case was numbered <\/p>\n
     as   R.C.C.   No.368\/2009   before   learned   Judicial <\/p>\n
     Magistrate, First Class, Khultabad. Being aggrieved by <\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:39 :::<\/span>
\n                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
     the said registration of offence and filing of charge <\/p>\n
     sheet bearing R.C.C. No.368\/2009, applicants (original <\/p>\n
     accused)   have   preferred   the   present   application <\/p>\n
     requesting   to   quash   and   set   aside   the   said   C.R.   No.<\/p>\n
     24\/2008   and   the   entire   proceedings   of   R.C.C.   No.<\/p>\n
     368\/2009.\n<\/p>\n
     4.   It   is   the   contentions   of   applicants   that <\/p>\n
     registration   of   above   crime   at   the   instance   of <\/p>\n
     complainant is result of temperamental differences and <\/p>\n
     implied imputations. It is submitted that all disputes <\/p>\n
     between complainant and applicants have been resolved <\/p>\n
     and   complainant   and   applicant   no.1-husband   both   are <\/p>\n
     residing   happily   together   since   last   one   year.\n<\/p>\n
     Applicants   also   contended   that   complainant   and   her <\/p>\n
     parents have no differences with any of applicants and <\/p>\n
     all   of   them   are   on   good   terms   with   each   other,   and <\/p>\n
     therefore, they wish to give an end to all the court <\/p>\n
     proceedings.   It   is   stated   by   applicants   that <\/p>\n
     complainant and applicants intended to compromise the <\/p>\n
     matter   in   view   of   the   Supreme   Court   judgment   in   the <\/p>\n
     case   of  B.S.   Joshi   &   others   V\/s   State   of   Haryana   &  <\/p>\n
     anr.  reported   in  2003   All   MR   Cri.Pg   1162.  It   is <\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:39 :::<\/span>
\n                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
     contended by the applicants that there are no special <\/p>\n
     circumstances   suggesting   to   allow   to   continue   the <\/p>\n
     prosecution.   It   is   also   submitted   that   it   is   rather <\/p>\n
     more   apparent   that   the   ultimate   conviction   is   bleak, <\/p>\n
     and   therefore,   no   useful   purpose   is   likely   to   be <\/p>\n
     served   by   allowing   the   criminal   prosecution   to <\/p>\n
     continue, and hence, it is submitted that it is more <\/p>\n
     in the interest of justice to quash the proceeding, so <\/p>\n
     the parties may terminate all their disputes and live <\/p>\n
     happily   together   instead   of   fighting   with   each   other <\/p>\n
     in the court of law for rest of their lives.\n<\/p>\n
     5.   Original complainant namely Kantabai Raju Ade i.e. <\/p>\n
     respondent   no.2   herein   has   filed   affidavit   in   reply <\/p>\n
     and stated that she is wife of applicant no.1 Raju Ade <\/p>\n
     and she is original complainant. She also stated that <\/p>\n
     on 16.02.2008, upon her instance C.R. No.24\/2008 came <\/p>\n
     to be registered with police station Khultabad against <\/p>\n
     present   applicants   under   Section   498-A,   323,   504   r\/w <\/p>\n
     34 of the Indian Penal Code. She further stated that <\/p>\n
     registration   of   the   above   crime   is   a   result   of <\/p>\n
     temperamental   differences.   The   recital   in   the <\/p>\n
     affidavit   in   reply   is   that   all   the   disputes   have <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:39 :::<\/span>
\n                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
     already been resolved between the complainant and the <\/p>\n
     applicants   and   both   are   residing   happily   together <\/p>\n
     since more than a year at her matrimonial home.  Said <\/p>\n
     affidavit in reply further states that respondent no.2 <\/p>\n
     and   her   parents   have   no   differences   with   any   of   the <\/p>\n
     applicants and they are on good terms and they wish to <\/p>\n
     give an end to all the court proceedings. She further <\/p>\n
     stated  that she wants  to  compromise matter  and  there <\/p>\n
     are no special circumstances which suggest to allow to <\/p>\n
     continue   the   prosecution   and   no   useful   purpose   is <\/p>\n
     likely   to   be   served   by   allowing   the   criminal <\/p>\n
     prosecution to continue.\n<\/p>\n
     6.   Learned   counsel   for   the   parties   relied   upon   the <\/p>\n
     observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the <\/p>\n
     case of  B.S. Joshi & Ors V\/s State of Haryana & anr  <\/p>\n
     reported in 2003(4) LJSOFT (SC) 9. Para 14 of the said <\/p>\n
     judgment reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
                ”    There is no doubt that the object of
\n                introducing   Chapter   XX-A   containing
\n                Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was
\n                to prevent the torture to a woman by her
\n                husband   or   by  relatives   of   her   husband.
\n                Section   498A   was   added   with   a   view   to
\n                punishing a husband and his relatives who <\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:39 :::<\/span>
\n                                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
                harass or torture the wife to coerce her
\n                or   her   relatives   to   satisfy   unlawful
\n                demands   of   dowry.   The   hyper-technical
\n                view   would   be   counter   productive   and <\/p>\n
                would act against interests of women and
\n                against   the   object   for   which   this
\n                provision   was   added.   There   is   every <\/p>\n
                likelihood that non-exercise of inherent
\n                powers   to  quash   the   proceedings   to   meet
\n                the   ends   of   justice   would  prevent  women
\n                from   settling   earlier.   That   is   not   the <\/p>\n
                object   of   Chapter   XXA   of   Indian   Penal
\n                Code.”\n<\/p>\n
     7.   Reliance   also   can   be   placed   on   the   Full   bench <\/p>\n
     Ruling   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of  Anjusingh <\/p>\n
     Pramodsingh   Rajput   V\/s   State   of   Maharashtra   &   anr.\n<\/p>\n
     reported in 2009 All MR (Cri) 763, wherein it has been <\/p>\n
     held   that   powers   under   Section   482   of   the   Code <\/p>\n
     Criminal Procedure are not limited or affected by the <\/p>\n
     provisions of Section 320 of the Code. It is further <\/p>\n
     held that the inherent powers under section 482 of the <\/p>\n
     Code include powers to quash F.I.R., investigation or <\/p>\n
     any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court <\/p>\n
     or   any   Courts   subordinate   to   it   and   are   of   wide <\/p>\n
     magnitude   and   ramification.   Such   powers   can   be <\/p>\n
     exercised to secure ends of justice, prevent abuse of <\/p>\n
     the   process   of   any   Court   and   to   make   such   orders   as <\/p>\n
     may   be   necessary   to   give   effect   to   any   order   under <\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:39 :::<\/span>
\n                                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
     this Code, depending upon the facts of a given case.\n<\/p>\n
     The powers  under  section  482  are  neither  limited  nor <\/p>\n
     curtailed   by   any   other   provisions   of   the   Code <\/p>\n
     including   section   320   of   the   Code.   The   Court   could <\/p>\n
     exercise these powers in offences of any kind, whether <\/p>\n
     compoundable   or   non-compoundable.   However,   such <\/p>\n
     inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with <\/p>\n
     caution and in conformity with the precepts indicated <\/p>\n
     in   paragraph   7.10   of   the   Judgment.   It   is   further <\/p>\n
     observed that the powers to compound can be exercised <\/p>\n
     at   the   trial   stage   or   even   at   the   appellate   state <\/p>\n
     subject   to   satisfaction   of   the   conditions   postulated <\/p>\n
     by the legislature under section 320 of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
     8.   The   Full   Bench   in   the   said   judgment   further <\/p>\n
     observed   that   powers   of   compounding   are   strictly <\/p>\n
     regulated   by   statutory   powers   while   the   inherent <\/p>\n
     powers   of   the   Court   are   guided   by   judicial <\/p>\n
     pronouncements within the scope of section 482 of the <\/p>\n
     Code.   Another   very   important   facet   of   criminal <\/p>\n
     jurisprudence,   as   developed   in   the   present   times,   is <\/p>\n
     with   regard   to   the   impact   of   compounding   and\/or <\/p>\n
     quashing   of   criminal   proceedings   in   relation   to   an <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:39 :::<\/span>
\n                                       9<\/span><\/p>\n
     offence   and   its   impact   on   the   victim,   witnesses   and <\/p>\n
     the   society   at   large.   This   must   be   treated   as   a <\/p>\n
     relevant consideration.\n<\/p>\n
     9.   In the above referred judgment it is observed by <\/p>\n
     the   Full   Bench   that   when   the   Court   has   to   consider <\/p>\n
     whether the criminal proceedings should be allowed to <\/p>\n
     continue   or   the   same   should   be   quashed,   two   aspects <\/p>\n
     are   to   be   satisfied   (i)   whether   the   uncontroverted <\/p>\n
     allegations,   as   made   in   the   complaint,   prima   facie <\/p>\n
     establish   the   offence,   and   (ii)   whether   it   is <\/p>\n
     expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a <\/p>\n
     prosecution to continue.\n<\/p>\n
     10. In   view   of   the   avernments   made   in   the   present <\/p>\n
     application   by   applicants   as   well   as   in   view   of   the <\/p>\n
     recitals made by respondent no.2(original complainant) <\/p>\n
     in   her   affidavit   in   reply   and   also   relying   upon <\/p>\n
     aforesaid judicial pronouncement, there can not be any <\/p>\n
     dispute that inherent powers under Section 482 of the <\/p>\n
     Code   of   Criminal   Procedure   include   powers   to   quash <\/p>\n
     F.I.R.,   investigation   or   any   criminal   proceedings <\/p>\n
     pending   before   the   High   Court   or   any   Courts <\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:39 :::<\/span>
\n                                        10<\/span><\/p>\n
     subordinate to it.\n<\/p>\n
     11. In the case at hand R.C.C. No.368\/2009 is pending <\/p>\n
     before   learned   Judicial   Magistrate,   First   Class, <\/p>\n
     Khultabad   arising   out   of   C.R.   No.24\/2008   registered <\/p>\n
     with   Khultabad   Police   station   for   the   offences <\/p>\n
     punishable   under   Sections   498-A,   323,   504   r\/w   34   of <\/p>\n
     the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 and 4 of the <\/p>\n
     Dowry   Prohibition   Act,   on   the   complaint   lodged   by <\/p>\n
     respondent no.2 herein. However, respondent no.2 i.e. <\/p>\n
     original   complainant   has   filed   affidavit   in   reply   as <\/p>\n
     aforesaid   and   stated   that   she   and   her     husband   i.e. <\/p>\n
     applicant   no.1   have   compromised   the   matter   and   they <\/p>\n
     are   residing   together   happily   since   more   than   one <\/p>\n
     year.   The   said   affidavit   in   reply   also   recites   that <\/p>\n
     all the disputes between her and applicants have been <\/p>\n
     resolved   and   now   there   are   no   differences   between <\/p>\n
     complainant and applicants herein and they are on good <\/p>\n
     terms   and   she   wish   to   give   an   end   to   all   the   court <\/p>\n
     proceedings.   She   further   stated   that   there   are   no <\/p>\n
     special   circumstances   which   suggest   to   allow   to <\/p>\n
     continue   the   prosecution   and   no   useful   purpose   is <\/p>\n
     likely   to   be   served   by   allowing   the   criminal <\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:39 :::<\/span>
\n                                      11<\/span><\/p>\n
     prosecution to continue.\n<\/p>\n
     12. Applicant   no.1-Raju   Nilaman   Ade   as   well   as <\/p>\n
     complainant Kantabai Raju Ade are present today in the <\/p>\n
     Court  and  both  of  them  admitted that  compromise took <\/p>\n
     place   between   them   and   they   have   been   residing <\/p>\n
     together since last one year happily. The complainant <\/p>\n
     Kantabai   Raju   Ade   has   categorically   stated   that   she <\/p>\n
     does not wish to prosecute R.C.C. No.368\/2009 pending <\/p>\n
     before   learned   Judicial   Magistrate,   First   Class, <\/p>\n
     Khultabad   arising   out   of   C.R.   No.24\/2008   registered <\/p>\n
     with   Khultabad   Police   station   furthermore,   and <\/p>\n
     requested to quash and set aside the said proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     13. In   the   circumstances,   the   complainant   Kantabai <\/p>\n
     Raju   Ade   has   no   grievance   against   applicants   herein, <\/p>\n
     and   therefore,   the   exercise   of   continuation   of <\/p>\n
     prosecution in R.C.C. No.368\/2009 would be futile, and <\/p>\n
     therefore, it is expedient in the interest of justice <\/p>\n
     not   to   permit   said   prosecution   to   continue.   Hence, <\/p>\n
     this   is   a   fit   case   to   invoke   inherent   powers   under <\/p>\n
     Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and <\/p>\n
     set aside the proceedings of R.C.C No.368\/2009 pending <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:40 :::<\/span>
\n                                     12<\/span><\/p>\n
     before   learned   Judicial   Magistrate,   First   Class, <\/p>\n
     Khultabad   arising   out   of   C.R.   No.24\/2008   registered <\/p>\n
     with   Khultabad   police   station   to   meet   the   ends   of <\/p>\n
     justice.\n<\/p>\n
     14. In   the   result,   proceedings   of   R.C.C.   No.368\/2009 <\/p>\n
     pending   before   learned   Judicial   Magistrate,   First <\/p>\n
     Class,   Khultabad   arising   out   of   C.R.   No.24\/2008 <\/p>\n
     registered   with   Khultabad   police   station   for   the <\/p>\n
     offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and <\/p>\n
     34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 and 4 <\/p>\n
     of   the   Dowry   Prohibition   Act   stand   quashed   and   set <\/p>\n
     aside and present criminal application stands disposed <\/p>\n
     of accordingly. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid <\/p>\n
     terms.\n<\/p>\n
                                             (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) <\/p>\n
                                                      JUDGE
\n     gas\/cri1077.10 <\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:40 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Raju vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 April, 2010 Bench: Shrihari P. Davare 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1077 OF 2010 1. Raju S\/o Nilaman Ade Age : 28 years, Occ : Agri., R\/o Takli Tanda, Tq.Khultabad, Dist.Aurangabad. 2. Deubai W\/o Nilaman […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-92482","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRaju vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 April, 2010 - 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\/raju-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raju vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-april-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-16T03:49:15+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raju-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raju-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raju vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-16T03:49:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raju-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1914,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raju-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raju-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raju-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Raju vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-16T03:49:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raju-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raju-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raju-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raju vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 April, 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":"Raju vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 April, 2010 - 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\/raju-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raju vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-16T03:49:15+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raju vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-16T03:49:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-april-2010"},"wordCount":1914,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-april-2010","name":"Raju vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-16T03:49:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raju vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 April, 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\/92482","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=92482"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92482\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=92482"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=92482"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=92482"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}