Allahabad Court June 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Jawwad Ahmad Siddiqui. Vs. State of U.P. and Another.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-24-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.2. It has been argued on behalf of the applicant that the dispute between the parties was purely of personal nature and they have compromised the same, therefore, the proceedings should be quashed since the compromise has been arrived at between the parties. In support of the argument reliance has been placed on 2008(4) SCC 582, Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, 2008(15) SCC 704, Jagdish Chanana and others v. State of Haryana and another, and 2008(9) SCC 677, Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another.3. To the above, it has been admitted by Mr. Nitin Srivastava, the learned counsel for private party the O.P. No. 2 that the parties have compromised the aforesaid case. In this regard an affidavit has also been filed from which it appears that the matter between the company and opposite party no. 2 have been compounded and the opposite party no. 2 has received all his i...
SachIn Yadav. Vs. State of U.P. and Another.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-24-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C has been filed for the direction for providing security to the applicant till conclusion of criminal case no.20012 of 2006 State v. Satish and others pending in the Court of C.J.M, Ghaziabad and Sessions Trial no.1021 of 2007 (State v. Jogeshwar and others) pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.6, Ghaziabad.3. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that by means of this application, the applicant is praying for quashing the order dated 25.5.2010 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.6, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial no.1021 of 2007 by which the learned Sessions Judge passed the order resting the security of the applicant on the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad and forwarded the application of the applicant in this respect to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad...
Krishn Pal Singh. Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-2010
1. The petitioner who happens to be a licensee of D.B.B.L. Gun, appears to be aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.05.2010, passed by Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi on stay application of the petitioner in Appeal No. 18 of 2009-10 filed under Section 18 of the Arms Act.2. It appears that the petitioner was granted licence for D.B.B.L.Gun and the said licence was cancelled by the District Magistrate, Jalaun on 22.04.2010. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed an appeal, in which he has filed a stay application for staying the operation of the cancellation order. The stay application was rejected by the impugned order. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no reason for rejecting the stay application has been given. He has also submitted that the fire arm is necessary for security of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents.3. From the perusal of the impugned...
industrial Area Manufactures Associaiton GhA. Thr G.M. Vs. State of U. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-2010
1. The facts on record of the present writ petition which is more or less in the nature of public interest litigation present a disturbing picture. Site no. 1, Industrial Area, Bulandshahar is an industrial area for which the local body constituted under the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1986 is the U.P.S.I.D.C. A copy of the layout plan of U.P.S.I.D.C. depicts site no. 1. There is no dispute between the parties on qua the said fact.2. According to the writ petitioner Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad who has been given an authority to maintain the park by the U.P.S.I.D.C. as per letter of the Regional Manager, U.P.S.I.D.C. dated 05.06.2010 filed as annexure no. 6 to the writ petition is proceeding to make construction of three level parking for accordingly 200 trucks at site no. 1. For the purpose the green trees standing on the site no. 1 have since been cut away. The allegation is supported by photographs annexed depicting the standing trees. It is stated that the construction are in pr...
Sanjay Kuamr GuptA. Vs State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A on the prayer for bail of accused appellant and perused the impugned judgement and order of the trial court as well as trial court record. This criminal appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant against the judgment and order dated 16.3.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-1, Lucknow in S.T. No.437 of 1999 (Case Crime No. 195 of 1997); State v. Sanjay Kumar Gupta and others under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C., Police Station Saadatganj, District Lucknow, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has held the accused-appellant guilty under Sections 306, 498-A I.P.C, consequently, he has convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 306 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- under Section 498-A I.P.C. 2. In case of default of payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo additi...
Kashi Ram and Another.Vs. the State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-2010
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for issuing writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 26.4.2010 and 09.12.2004 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nanpara, District Bahraich in trial no. 66/04/03 under Section 145/146 Cr. P.C.2. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 2 is the transferee of the disputed revenue plot while petitioner no. 1 is her husband. Opposite Party No. 3 claims to be owner of the disputed plot on the basis of succession. At the instance of opposite party no. 3, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nanpara initiated proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. And passed a preliminary order on 10.6.2004 thereafter the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nanpara passed an order under Section 146 Cr. P.C. for attachment of the disputed plot. The petitioners were second party and they challenged the order of attachment passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate bef...
Ashwani Garg and Others. Vs. State of U.P.,thru. Prin. Secy., Home and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-2010
1. Heard Shri Rishad Murtaza, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Satyendra Kumar Singh learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 3 and the learned Additional Government Advocate, who has accepted notices on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2.2. We have gone through the contents of the FIR, writ petition as well as counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 3.4. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred for quashing of FIR relating to case crime no. 426 of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 507 IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Gazipur, district Lucknow.5. In para-30 of the counter affidavit it has been put forward as also averred by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since it being a matrimonial dispute every effort be made so that the parties may reconcile the same amicably before the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court. There seems to be some substance ...
Rahul Singh, and Adv. Vs Union of India and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-2010
1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Mishra who appeared for the respondent no. 3. Petitioners before this Court are stated to pass their L.L.B examination. They are registered with the Bar Council of Delhi. Petitioners seek quashing of Section 1 (3) of the Advocates Act 1961 which according to them is discriminatory, unconstitutional and therefore, voilative of article 14 and 19 (1) (G) of the Constitution of India. They further seek quashing of the resolution of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh dated 18.04.2010 wherein it has been provided that no advocate shall be permitted to practice in any Court within the State of Uttar Pradesh unless he his registered as such with the bar council of Uttar Pradesh.2. Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Aeltemesh Rein V/s. Union of India and others reported in (1988) 4 Supreme Court Cases Volume 4 Page 54 submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had issued a direction to the ...
Pradeep Kumar GuptA. Vs. the State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist on the point of admission and perused the impugned judgment and order. Learned A.G.A. agrees that the revision may be finally decided at the admission stage without issuing notice to the opposite party no. 2 (complainant).2. This criminal revision under Section 397 (1)/401 Cr. P.C. has been moved by the accused against the judgment and order dated 7.6.2010, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No. 253 of 2007 (case crime no. 624/06); State Versus Pratap Singh & Others under Sections 302/120- B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Hardoi, by which the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge has rejected the application no. 289/B filed by the accused revisionist for taking the report dated 21.4.2010 prepared by the Government Medico Legal Expert on record in his defence.3. The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the case was fixed for argument while ...
Shishir Jaiswal. Vs. State of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy.,home and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-2010
1. Heard Shri I.B.Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Shri U.P.Singh learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5.2.This petition has been filed with the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. relating to Case Crime No.3135 of 2010 under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 325, 456, 307, 454 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao.3. We have gone through the contents of the FIR. Since it discloses commission of cognizable offence as such the same cannot be quashed. At the very outrightly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since it being a matrimonial dispute if the matter is forwarded before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre, there is every chance that the matter between the parties may be settled amicably after negotiation to which Shri U.P.Singh learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5 does not have any objection.4. In any case, it has to be sen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »