Allahabad Court August 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.
Nijam Uddin, and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. This is the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 15.3.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 27, Azamgarh, in Criminal Case No. 1720 of 2008, State v. Nijam Uddin and others, whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the compromise filed by the complainant and the accused on the ground that the offence under section 506(2) was not compoundable.2. The applicants are accused in the aforesaid case and they are facing trial under sections 504 and 506 I.P.C.. The offences under sections 504 & 506 I.P.C. are compoundable, but the offence under section 506(2) does not seem to be compoundable. The learned Magistrate was of the view that the allegations made against the applicants made out a case under section 506(2) I.P.C., therefore, he rejected the compromise.3. The Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of a compromise in regard to noncompoundable offences in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another(2003) 4 SCC 675 and ...
Kedar and Another. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. As per prosecution story the applicants, who were armed with Lathi-danda, entered the house of the informant and looted Rs. 40,000/- and applicant no. 2 Mahendra also caused injury to her abdomen resulting into profuse bleeding and miscarriage of the fetus of 14-15 weeks in her womb.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the F.I.R. was lodged in pursuant to an application filed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. without explaining the delay in filing the said application. He further submits that, as per the medical report, all the injuries, alleged to have been sustained by the victim and her father, were simple in nature and even no mark of injury was found on her abdomen. He further submits that the victim got herself aborted voluntarily and not on account of any injury as alleged by the prosecution because if she had got the abortion done on account of the profus...
Kamal, and Others. Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned Additional Government Advocate.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.1085 of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffar Nagar. 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. While referring the matter to Mediation Centre with the consent of the petitioners, it is directed that the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- with the Mediation Centre by way of ...
Vikash Tyagi. Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. One Life Member of the General Body consisting of more than 800 members has filed this petition to assail the decision of the Regional Level Committee taken on 5.2.2009 by which the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 17th September, 2008 have been approved with Mahesh Kujar Tyagi as the Manager.2. It is the contention of Sri N.L. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that since the earlier elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution had taken place on 2.6.2003 and the term of five years had expired on 12.6.2008, the outgoing Committee of Management could not have held the elections.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed writ petition no.41640 of 2008 in which the order dated 14.8.2008 was passed but Special Appeal No.1020 of 2008 was filed which was disposed of on 25.8.2008 by giving liberty to the parties to raise their objections before the Regional Level Committ...
Hari Lal Yadav. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits thatthere is inordinate delay of about five months in lodging the F.I.R. and there is no plausible explanation in respect thereof. He further submits that theapplicant was a Government employee and was posted as Pharmacist in the hospital where the offence is alleged to have been committed. He further submits that the age of the prosecutor, as per the medical report, is shown to be about 16 years and no definite opinion about rape has been given by the Doctor.2. He further submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein she made allegation of committing rape on her by the applicant, who was posted as pharmacist, about 2-3 years ago while she had gone to Rajkiya Mahila Hospital, Jagdishpur Pandey alongwith one Hari Prasad for her treatment whereas in her earlier statement recorded under s...
Shyama Devi, and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 2.11.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1 Etawah in criminal revision no. 290 of 2007 (Shyama Devi v. State of U.P.) whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision filed on behalf of the applicant and confirmed the order dated 11.6.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Its Etawah in case crime no. 160 of 2005 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.2. It appears that in the aforesaid case the investigating officer submitted a final report on the ground that no case was made out. The respondent no.2 Smt. Saroj, who is the complainant, moved a protest petition against the final report. The learned Magistrate, considered the protest petition report and perused the entire case diary and arrived at the conclusion that the final report was not correct and there were sufficient materials on record to take cognizance of the offences under section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and he ac...
Ramanpal Singh, and Others. Vs. State of U.P. and Another.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Heard Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State.2. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 17.7.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur in crime no. 280 of 2008 ( wrongly mentioned as 280 of 2009 in the impugned order) under section 304, 504, 506 IPC P.S. Khudaganj District Shahjahanpur.3. In the aforesaid case crime number, the police submitted final report in favour of the revisionists. The respondent no. 2, complainant filed protest petition. After hearing the complainant as well as Assistant Public Prosecutor, the final report was rejected. The protest petition was allowed and the revisionists were summoned to face trial.4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the learned Magistrate, while summoning the revisionists, neither relied on the material available in the case diary nor treated the protest petition as complaint case and did not even record the statement of the compl...
Jaslok and Company. Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.09.2009 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur (Lok Adalat) in Case Crime No. 5029 of 2007 (Jaslok and Company v. Sunil Bhati), under Section 138/142 Negotiable Instruments Act, P.S. Civil Lines, District Rampur.2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the proceeding of the aforesaid case was sent to the Lok Adalat without intimation/information to the applicant, which proceedings were at the summoning stage and therefore, there was no question for the applicant to appear in the case at this stage.3. It is next contended that as there was no compromise between the parties and as the applicant has given no application for sending the proceeding to the Lok Adalat therefore, the matter referring to Lok Adalat is bad in law. Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable within four weeks. Steps be taken within a week.4. Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted fo...
Maya Ram, and Others. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.).
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Mahipal Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that there are cross cases. From the side of the applicants four persons have received injuries and initially the present F.I.R. was lodged as N.C.R. case thereafter it has been altered after the death of the deceased on 16.6.2010. 3. Learned Private Counsel for the complainant contended that injury was inflicted on the head of the deceased due to which he died and prior to this occurrence applicant had entered into the house of the complainant and inflicted injuries 4. Learned A.G.A. has supported the same facts. 5. There are cross cases. From the side of the applicants four persons have received injuries. Cause of death is coma as a result of head injury and it is not clear who is the author of the head injury. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions ...
Vivek Kumar Srivastava, and Another. Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent.2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the present matter can be well considered by the Mediation Centre of this Court. It is further contended that the applicants are ready to pay the amount due to opposite party no. 2; therefore, the matter may be referred to the Mediation Centre to re-conciliate between the parties.3. It is directed that the applicants shall deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- within two weeks from today with the Mediation Centre of which 50% shall be paid to the opposite party no.2 for appearance before the Mediation Centre.4. The matter is remitted to the Mediation Centre with the direction that the same may be decided after giving notices to both the parties.5. It is directed that the Mediation Centre shall decide the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of three months. Thereafter the case shall be listed before the appropriate Bench on 01.11.2...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »