Allahabad Court July 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.
Hemant Sharma and Others. Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 2. The argument substantially is that fraught relation emanating from matrimonial bickering escalated into launching of criminal proceeding vide F.I.R. which was registered at case crime No.288 of 2010, under Sections 498A,323,504,506 and 313 IPC and 3/4 of D.P.Act, P.S.Kachhwa,, District Mirzapur.3. Having considered the arguments advanced across the bar, we have a feeling that Court owes a duty to the society to strain to the utmost to repair the frayed relations between the parties so that the wounded situation may be healed into a healthy rapprochement. The matter in hand also appears to be one of those cases in which reconciliation should be tried between the disputing parties.4. While referring the matter to Mediation Centre with the consent of the petitioners, it is directed that petitioner No.1 shall deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with the Mediation Centre by way of Bank draft drawn in ...
Ram Prakash Alias Pappu and anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2010
1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellants Ram Prakash alias Pappu, Shyam Lal, Bhura and Smt. Munni Devi against the judgement and order dated 30.03.1994 passed by the Session Judge, Hardoi in S.T. No. 398 of 1992, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act , P.S. Kotwali Dehat, district Hardoi. By the impugned judgement & order learned trial court held guilty to the accused appellants for the aforesaid offences and sentenced them for RI of seven years under Section 304-B IPC for one year's RI, under Section 498-A IPC and under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Separately, Smt. Munni Devi was sentenced for simple imprisonment for the aforesaid terms for all the offences as above. All the sentences of the accused persons are to run concurrently. One accused Kumari Suman was acquitted by the trial court from the charges levelled against her. Learned AGA has not contended that any appeal has been filed against the acquittal order.2. As per pros...
Chankya @ Varun Singh. Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2010
1. Challenge in this petition is to the show cause notice dated 12.4.2010 issued to the petitioner under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act by respondent no. 2 i.e. District Magistrate/Addl. District Magistrate (Admn), District Shahjahanpur.2. From a perusal of the notice, it would transpire that the notice has been issued listing charges firstly that he is a Goonda and has committed an offence defined under Chapters 16,17 and 22 I.P.C. secondly, the charge against the petitioner is that either no one dares to lodge the F.I.R. or give the evidence against him. Two cases have been cited to prop up the invocation of the provisions of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act against the petitioner. On the basis of alleged criminal history as embodied in the notice, the action was initiated under section (3) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act 1970 spelling out the ground that the activities of the petitioner are causing alarm and danger to person or property or that there are reasonable grounds for be...
imran and Others. Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned Addl. Government Advocate. The argument substantially is that fraught relation emanating from matrimonial bickering escalated into launching of criminal proceeding vide Case Crime No. 241 of 2010 under section 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act police station Afzalgarh District Bijnor. 2. Having considered the arguments advanced across the bar, we have a feeling that Court owes a duty to the society to strain to the utmost to repair the frayed relations between the parties so that the wounded situation may be healed into a healthy rapprochement. The matter in hand also appears to be one of those cases in which reconciliation should be tried between the disputing parties.3. While referring the matter to Mediation Centre with the consent of the petitioners, it is directed that petitioner No.1 shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- with the Mediation Centre by way of Bank draft drawn in favour of Mediation Cent...
Ajit Singh. Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2010
1. Challenge in this petition is to the show cause notice dated 5.6.2010 issued to the petitioner under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act by respondent no. 4, i. e. Additional District Magistrate, Fatehpur. From a perusal of the notice, it would transpire that the notice has been issued listing charges firstly that he is a Goonda and has committed an offence defined under Chapters 16,17 and 22 I.P.C. secondly, the charge against the petitioner is that either no one dares to lodge the F.I.R. or give the evidence against him. Three cases have been cited to prop up the invocation of the provisions of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act against the petitioner. On the basis of alleged criminal history as embodied in the notice, the action was initiated under section 3(1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act 1970 spelling out the ground that the activities of the petitioner are causing alarm and danger to person or property or that there are reasonable grounds for believing that that such person is ...
Javed Haider, Adv. Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2010
1. Heard Mr. Alok Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.2. Being ex-serviceman and holding the eligibility criteria for admission in B.T.C. Training Course- 2004, the petitioner is seeking his admission under the quota reserved for exserviceman. In the selection in question 5 posts have to be filled in from amongst the ex-serviceman category candidates out of which 3 posts have been reserved for the male candidates and 2 posts for female. So far as the against 3 posts of male candidates is concerned indisputedly 3 persons have been selected but the posts belonging to female candidates are concerned those are still vacant as no eligible candidates are available for admitting against those posts. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner claims his candidature against one of those posts in terms of Govt. order dated 26th of February, 1999, which provides that against the posts reserved for female candidates, if no female candidate is available the same sh...
Rajesh, and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2010
1. This criminal appeal is against the conviction and sentence dated 8.12.1982, passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur (the ASJ) in session trial No.172 of 1981, District Hamirpur. THE FACTS2. An incident happened on 23.11.1980 at 13:00 hours. In this incident Devi Deen (the Deceased) was injured. He lodged the FIR at 15:00 hours and thereafter died in the hospital at 18:15 hours. The FIR was registered as case crime No.237 of 1980, under Section 147, 148 and 307 IPC, police station Kotwali Hamirpur,District Hamirpur.4. The allegations in the FIR are as follows: The Deceased was coming towards his house along with his wife. They met Beta Maharaj, Rajesh (Appellant-1), Gaya Prasad alias Lallan (Appellant-2), Kallu (Appellant-4) (all armed with fire arms) and Ganga Ram (Appellant-3), Jagroop (Appellant-5) (armed with spears) (all are referred to as the Accused) when they reached near the hut of Babu Ram. Beta Maharaj exhorted that they have met the enemy and he should be ...
Smt. Munni @ Dulara and Others. Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 2. The argument substantially is that fraught relation emanating from matrimonial bickering escalated into launching of criminal proceeding vide F.I.R. which was registered at case crime No.49/182 of 2010, under Sections 498-A,307,323,324,504 and 506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P.Act, P.S. Inchauli, District Meerut.3. Having considered the arguments advanced across the bar, we have a feeling that Court owes a duty to the society to strain to the utmost to repair the frayed relations between the parties so that the wounded situation may be healed into a healthy rapprochement. The matter in hand also appears to be one of those cases in which reconciliation should be tried between the disputing parties.4. While referring the matter to Mediation Centre with the consent of the petitioners, it is directed that petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with the Mediation Centre by way of Bank draft drawn ...
Ramashraya Yadav and Others. Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned Addl. Government Advocate. The argument substantially is that fraught relation emanating from matrimonial bickering escalated into launching of criminal proceeding vide Case Crime No. 904 of 2010 under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act police station Madhuban District Mau. 2. Having considered the arguments advanced across the bar, we have a feeling that Court owes a duty to the society to strain to the utmost to repair the frayed relations between the parties so that the wounded situation may be healed into a healthy rapprochement. The matter in hand also appears to be one of those cases in which reconciliation should be tried between the disputing parties.3. While referring the matter to Mediation Centre with the consent of the petitioners, it is directed that petitioner No.1 shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- with the Mediation Centre by way of Bank draft drawn in favour of Mediation Centre, High Cou...
Kateshwar Nath Singh [Cons]. Vs .D.D.C.GondA.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2010
1. Heard the petitioner in person who says that he is practicing lawyer in District Court, learned standing counsel on behalf of State respondents No. 1 to 3. None present on behalf of respondent No. 4 and perused the record.2. Writ Petition No. 4181 of 1986 was filed by the petitioner with the prayer to issue an order or direction in the nature of certiorari and to quash the order dated 28.05.1986 passed by learned Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 1766/1985 Kateshwar Nath Singh versus Jagdish Chandra contained in Annexure-3 of the writ petition. This writ petition was dismissed by this Court under the order dated 29.11.1996 by Justice B.K. Singh. A Review Petition No. 8/1997 was filed by the petitioner. Record shows that this review petition was allowed vide order dated 18.05.2004 and order dated 29.11.1996 was recalled and petition was restored to its original number. Later on, the respondent No. 4 had died. His legal heirs were substituted. Notice were issued to the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »