{"id":94376,"date":"2011-09-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/desh-mither-popli-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-september-2011"},"modified":"2019-03-14T21:15:00","modified_gmt":"2019-03-14T15:45:00","slug":"desh-mither-popli-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/desh-mither-popli-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Desh Mither Popli vs State Represented By on 16 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Desh Mither Popli vs State Represented By on 16 September, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 16\/09\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA\n\nCrl.O.P.(MD) No.12 of 2010\nand\nM.P.(MD) Nos.2 and 3 of 2010\n\n1.Desh Mither Popli\n2.Nithis Popli\t\t\t\t.. Petitioners\n\nVs.\n\n1.State represented by\n   The Inspector of Police,\n   City Crime Branch,\n   Madurai City,\n   Madurai.\t\t\t\n\n2.Sri Ram Ananth\t\t   \t.. Respondents\n(R2 impleaded as per the order of\n this Court dated 12.02.2010\n made in M.P.(MD) No.4 of 2010)\n\nPrayer\n\nCriminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to\ncall for the records in C.C.No.190 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial\nMagistrate No.1, Madurai and quash the Charge Sheet by allowing this criminal\noriginal petition.\n\n!For Petitioners   ... Mr.M.Vallinayagam\n^For Respondents   ... Mr.A.P.Balasubramani,\n\t\t       G.A., (Crl. Side) for R1\n\t\t         Mr.Sri Ram Ananth\n\t\t\tParty in person\n\t\t\t\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis petition has been filed to call for the records in C.C.No.190 of 2009<br \/>\non the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai and quash the Charge Sheet<br \/>\nby allowing this criminal original petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the<br \/>\nalleged occurrence has been taken place in 1998 and the complaint has been given<br \/>\nin the year 2008 and no explanation has given for the delay in preferring the<br \/>\ncomplaint and  the F.I.R. does not disclose the ingredients of the offence under<br \/>\nSection 420 I.P.C.,  He would further submit that the transactions are only<br \/>\ncivil in nature and the complaint has failed to prove the dishonest intention of<br \/>\nthe petitioners to cheat him.  He would further submit that the F.I.R. and<br \/>\ncharge sheet disclosed only the breach of civil liability and the grievance of<br \/>\nthe defacto complainant is that the petitioners have received a sum of<br \/>\nRs.5,40,000\/- and promised to pay back the same and also promised to induce him<br \/>\nin the business as partner and thereafter, they could not fulfill the promise<br \/>\nand it will not attract the ingredients of Section 420 I.P.C. and hence, he<br \/>\nprayed for the quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.The 2nd respondent has filed a written argument stating that the 1st<br \/>\npetitioner is his close friend for nearly 25 years and the 2nd respondent has<br \/>\nextended the help in the year 1994 to 1995 while the 1st petitioner was in<br \/>\ntrouble with his landlord of office and he played a major role not only enabling<br \/>\nhim to purchase his house cum shop from late Mohamed Ariff, who agitated so much<br \/>\nwith behaviour of the 1st petitioner, who filed so many cases against his<br \/>\nlandlord Mohamed Ariff.  He would further stated that he also gone to the extent<br \/>\nof advancing a sum of Rs.50,000\/- to Mohamed Ariff by way of advance on behalf<br \/>\nof the petitioner by entering into sale agreement between himself and the<br \/>\nMohamed Ariff for the house, since the said Mohamed Ariff did not want to sell<br \/>\nhis property to the 1st petitioner at any cost.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.He would further state that after the death of Mohamed Ariff in the year<br \/>\n1995, the 1st petitioner has purchased the said property from the legal heirs of<br \/>\nthe said Mohamed Ariff in the year 1998 and at that time, the 2nd respondent<br \/>\nextended the financial assistant for a tune of Rs.3,90,000\/- by way of bank pay<br \/>\norder, cheque and by way stamp paper for registration, but no money has been<br \/>\nreturned.  He would further submit that on 22.05.2009, because of the small<br \/>\nmisunderstanding between the 2nd respondent and the 1st petitioner, the 2nd<br \/>\nrespondent wrote a personal letter to all the family of the 1st petitioners,<br \/>\nbut, he received a reply letter from the counsel of the 1st petitioner denying<br \/>\nall the contention of the letter of the 2nd respondent and hence, he preferred a<br \/>\ncomplaint on 08.09.2008 and he prayed for the dismissal of the application.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that on the<br \/>\nbasis of the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, a case has been registered<br \/>\nfor an offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and after investigation, charge sheet<br \/>\nhas been filed under Section 420 I.P.C., wherein, it was specifically mentioned<br \/>\nthat the 1st petitioner has given a false promise that he is ready to give a<br \/>\nshare and received a sum of Rs.5,40,000\/- and hence, he has committed the<br \/>\noffence under Section 420 I.P.C., and the investigating agency has properly<br \/>\ninvestigated the  matter and filed the charge sheet and hence, he prayed for the<br \/>\ndismissal of the application.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused<br \/>\nthe entire case diary.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.On the basis of the complaint given by the 2nd respondent dated<br \/>\n08.09.2008, a case has been registered for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C<br \/>\nagainst the petitioners.  While perusing the F.I.R., even though in the earlier<br \/>\nportion, it has been stated that the petitioners have to pay a sum of<br \/>\nRs.5,40,000\/-  and for the balance amount, they agreed to pay interest @ 24% and<br \/>\nwhen the defacto complainant demanded the same, they refused to pay that amount<br \/>\nand gave a false reply, in the last lines, he has stated that they obtained<br \/>\nmoney after giving assurance that they will include the defacto complainant as<br \/>\npartner in their business.  The relevant portion of the F.I.R. would run thus:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;vjph;kDjhuh;fs; kDjhUf;F tl;o ny;yhky; ehsJ Bjjp U.5,40,000\/- buhf;fkhf<br \/>\nju Btz;oaJ cs;sJ.  vjph;kDjhh;fs; kDjhUf;F mtUila ghf;fp bjhiff;F 24% tl;o<br \/>\njUtjhf xg;g[f;bfhz;Ls;shh;fs;.  kDjhh; gyKiw BehpYk; bjhiyBgrp Kykhft[k;<br \/>\nghf;fpj; bjhifia jpUk;g brYj;JkhW Bfl;ljw;F vjph;kDjhh;fs; gzj;ij jpUk;gr;<br \/>\nbrYj;jhky; fhyk; jhH;j;jp te;jhh;fs;.   kDjhuh; nWjpahf vjph;kDjhuh;fSf;F xU<br \/>\nfojk; vGjp ghf;fpj;bjhif jpUk;g brYj;JkhW Bfl;lhh;.  kDjhuh;fs; vGjpa fojj;jpw;F<br \/>\nvjph;kDjhh;fs; fle;j 09.6.2008k; Bjjpad;W bfl;l vz;zj;Jld; tHf;fwpqh; Kyk;<br \/>\ngzj;jpw;F ve;jtpj bghWg;g[k; ny;iy vd;W gjpy; mspj;Js;shh;.  mjd;gpwF kDjhuh;<br \/>\nkPz;Lk;  10 ehl;fs; fhy mtfhrk; bfhLj;J gjpy; mDg;gpa[s;shh;.  vjph;kDjhh;fs;<br \/>\nkDjhUf;F gzj;ij jpUk;g brYj;j ve;jtpj Kaw;rpa[k; vLf;ftpy;iy.  vjph;kDjhh;fs;<br \/>\nmth;fs; bra;J tUk; bjhHpypd; mgptpUj;jpf;fhf mjpf gzk; Bjit vd;Wk;, Bkw;go<br \/>\ngzj;ij ehd; bfhLj;jhy; vd;id gA;Fjhuuhf Brh;j;Jf; bfhs;tjhf Twp mjpf yhgk;<br \/>\nfpilf;Fk; vd Mir thh;j;ij Twpdhh;.  09.06.200k Bjjpad;W vd;id bjhHpypy;<br \/>\nBrh;j;Jf; bfhs;s KoahJ vd;Wk; gzk; ju KoahJ vd;Wk; Behpy; Twptpl;L, vdJ gzj;ij<br \/>\nmgfhpf;Fk; Behf;fj;Jld; vd;id Vkhw;wp vd;id ek;g itj;J ek;gpf;if Bkhro bra;J<br \/>\nVkhw;wp cs;shh;fs;.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.Perusal of the 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of one Rajan, who is the Chief<br \/>\nManager of Federal Bank would prove the payment of the amount.  In variably, the<br \/>\nwife of the 2nd respondent has stated in her 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement that the<br \/>\npetitioners have received the amount giving a false promise that they will<br \/>\ninclude the 2nd respondent as a partner in their business, but, on 09.06.2008,<br \/>\nthey refused to include him as partner in their business and then only, the 2nd<br \/>\nrespondent has given the complaint.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.As per the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\npetitioners, the averments in the complaint and charge sheet will not amount to<br \/>\ncheating and the ingredients of Section 415 I.P.C has not been made out.<br \/>\nCheating is defined in Section 415 of the Code as:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;415. Cheating.- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or<br \/>\ndishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any<br \/>\nperson, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or<br \/>\nintentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which<br \/>\nhe would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission<br \/>\ncauses or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind,<br \/>\nreputation or property, is said to &#8220;cheat&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tExplanation. &#8211; A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the<br \/>\nmeaning of this section.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The section requires-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t1) deception of any person;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2) (a) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) to deliver any property to any person, or\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii)to consent that any person shall retain any property; or\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which<br \/>\nhe would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, an which act or omission<br \/>\ncauses or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind,<br \/>\nreputation or property.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.At this juncture, it is also appropriate to consider the decision in<br \/>\nHridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others Vs. State of Bhar and another reported in<br \/>\n(2000)4 Supreme Court Cases 168, wherein, this Court has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the<br \/>\ndistinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a<br \/>\nfine one.  It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of<br \/>\ninducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent<br \/>\nconduct is not the sole test.  Mere breach of contract cannot given rise to<br \/>\ncriminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is<br \/>\nshown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the<br \/>\noffence is said to have been committed.  Therefore it is the intention which is<br \/>\nthe gist of the offence.  To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to<br \/>\nshow that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the<br \/>\npromise.  From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable<br \/>\nintention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise cannot be<br \/>\npresumed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.Considering the above said decision along with the facts of the present<br \/>\ncase, in the F.I.R. and 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of the 2nd<br \/>\nrespondent\/complainant, there is no whisper that at the time of receiving the<br \/>\namount, the petitioners have given assurance that they will include him as a<br \/>\npartner in their business.  In the earlier portion of the F.I.R., it was stated<br \/>\nthat the petitioners have agreed to repay the balance amount with interest @<br \/>\n24%.  In such circumstances, the intention of the accused at the time of<br \/>\ninducement, will be judged by the subsequent conduct, but for this subsequent<br \/>\nconduct is not the sole test.  Mere breach of contract cannot given rise to<br \/>\ncriminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is<br \/>\nshown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the<br \/>\noffence is said to have been committed.  In the averment in the F.I.R. and<br \/>\n161(3) Cr.P.C. statement, he never stated that at the time of receiving the<br \/>\namount, he fraudulently dishonestly induced the 2nd respondent to  deliver the<br \/>\namount by made promise that the petitioners will include the 2nd respondent  as<br \/>\na sharer in their business.  But, as already stated notice has been issued by<br \/>\nthe 2nd respondent, in which the 2nd respondent received a reply with false<br \/>\nallegations and refused to repay the amount and then only, the complaint has<br \/>\nbeen given.  This would show that there is a money transaction between the<br \/>\nparties and hence, the ingredients of Section 415 I.P.C has not been prima facie<br \/>\nmade out against the petitioners and hence, I am of the opinion that this is a<br \/>\nfit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and the<br \/>\nproceedings in C.C.No.190 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1,<br \/>\nMadurai is hereby quashed against the petitioners.  Consequently, connected<br \/>\nmiscellaneous petitions are also closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Arul<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1. The Inspector of Police,<br \/>\n   City Crime Branch,<br \/>\n   Madurai City,<br \/>\n   Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1,<br \/>\n   Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,<br \/>\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Desh Mither Popli vs State Represented By on 16 September, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16\/09\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12 of 2010 and M.P.(MD) Nos.2 and 3 of 2010 1.Desh Mither Popli 2.Nithis Popli .. Petitioners Vs. 1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-94376","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Desh Mither Popli vs State Represented By on 16 September, 2011 - 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\/desh-mither-popli-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Desh Mither Popli vs State Represented By on 16 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/desh-mither-popli-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-september-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-14T15:45:00+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\\\/desh-mither-popli-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/desh-mither-popli-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Desh Mither Popli vs State Represented By on 16 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-14T15:45:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/desh-mither-popli-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1898,\"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\\\/desh-mither-popli-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/desh-mither-popli-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/desh-mither-popli-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Desh Mither Popli vs State Represented By on 16 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-14T15:45:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/desh-mither-popli-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/desh-mither-popli-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/desh-mither-popli-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Desh Mither Popli vs State Represented By on 16 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Desh Mither Popli vs State Represented By on 16 September, 2011 - 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\/desh-mither-popli-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Desh Mither Popli vs State Represented By on 16 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/desh-mither-popli-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-14T15:45:00+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\/desh-mither-popli-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/desh-mither-popli-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Desh Mither Popli vs State Represented By on 16 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-14T15:45:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/desh-mither-popli-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-september-2011"},"wordCount":1898,"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\/desh-mither-popli-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/desh-mither-popli-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/desh-mither-popli-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-september-2011","name":"Desh Mither Popli vs State Represented By on 16 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-14T15:45:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/desh-mither-popli-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/desh-mither-popli-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/desh-mither-popli-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Desh Mither Popli vs State Represented By on 16 September, 2011"}]},{"@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\/94376","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=94376"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94376\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94376"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94376"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94376"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}