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.
Hridaya NaraIn Tiwari, and Others. Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and the learned AGA and also perused the record. 2. This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code") for quashing the proceedings of the criminal case arising out of case crime no. 36 of 2006 (State of U.P. v Sanjay Tiwari& others) under sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Bhawarkola, Distrtict Ghazipur. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that according to the averments made in the FIR, the prosecutrix was kicked out from the nuptial home on 20.04.2005 but according to the application dated 20.04.2005 given by the brother of the respondent no. 2 to the SO concerned, he himself took the prosecutrix from her nuptial home on 19.05.2005, therefore, the allegations of the FIR were not correct. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that from the facts stated in the FI...
Raghuvir Saran, and Others. Vs. Laxmi Chand Bansal, and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of case no.878 of 2009, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 325, 504 IPC, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Court No.6, Agra and also for quashing of the order dated 3.10.2009 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Court No.6, Agra and the order dated 31.7.2010, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Agra in criminal revision no.337 of 2009.2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the grand daughter of applicant no.1 was marred to the son of opposite party no.2, who was murdered by the son of opposite party no.2 against which the applicant no.1 had initiated proceedings against opposite party no.2 and his family members.3. It is further contended that as a counter blast and to put pressure upon the a...
Sishu Pal SharmA. Vs. Union Of India Thru' Central Narcotics Bureau.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA. The present criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 4.3.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Badaun in SST No.46 /2004 Under Section 18, 26 and 28 of NDPS Act Police Station Vibhagiya, District Budaun and sentencing him to undergo rigorous mprisonment of 12 years along with a fine of Rs. 100000/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment of two years. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that that he is neither licencee under the NDPS Act nor he was found cultivating the opium without any licence in contravention of the provisions of this Act and as such he could not have been convicted for the offence under Sections 18, 26 and 28 of NDPS Act, Police Station Vibhagiya, District Budaun. 3. He next pointed out that the applicant who is in jail since 4.3.2010 has no criminal antecedent to his credit and there is no inst...
Mahaveer, and Another. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.).
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants/appellants and the learned Additional Government Advocate on this application moved under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for bail in pending appeal. 2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by appellants Mahaveer and Rohit against judgment and order dated 31.03.2010 passed by the learned Additional District and SessionsJudge/F.T.C. 2, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No. 681 of 1995 whereby they have been convicted under Sections 307/34 and 302/34 IPC and have been sentenced for maximum term of life imprisonment with fine stipulation. 3. We have gone through the judgment and record of lower court, including FIR, statement of two injured witnesses, namely, Smt. Guddi (PW-2) and Parmeshwar (PW 3). 4. It comes out from the FIR that Rajaram armed with gun, Rohit armed with country-made-pistol, Mahaveer and Horilal armed with lathis entered into the house of complainant; Rajaram fired from his gun, which hit Kripa Shankar (deceased), Smt. Guddi and Parmeshw...
illas Quresi. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.). and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. List revised. No one is present for the accused-O.P. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 3. The present application has been filed for cancellation of bail of accused O.P. No.2 to 5, granted by learned Sessions Judge Mathura, on 19.9.2008, 21.10.2008 and 24.10.2008 respectively in Case Crime No. 69 of 2008, under Section 498-A, 307, 323, 504, 506 and 315 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Act, P.S. Chhata, District Mathura. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that accused-Opposite Parties were harassing daughter of the applicant, regarding which the First Information Report was lodged. She was abused, beaten and compel to left the house. The case was registered as Case Crime No. 69 of 2008, under Section 498-A, 307, 323, 504, 506 and 315 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Act, P.S. Chhata, and District Mathura. Accused -O.P.No. 2 to 5 were released on bail by the Court of Sessions Judge, Mathura. After they were released on bail, they starting threateni...
Baboo, and Others. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. Heard the learned for the applicants and the learned AGA for the respondent no.1 and also the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and perused the record. 2. This is a petition under section 482 CrPC against the order dated 22.7.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Fatehpur in ST No. 11 of 2003 (State v. Balram) whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has summoned the applicants as additional accused to face trial in regard to the charges under section 363 and 366 IPC.3. The learned counsel for the parties informed that co-accused i.e. Balram has already been convicted and sentenced. 4. It appears that the impugned order was passed on the basis of the statement of PW-1 Sohan Singh and PW-2 Sudha (victim). These two witnesses had been thoroughly cross examined prior to passing of the impugned order. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the statements of both the witnesses in detail and arrived at the conclusion that there was sufficient m...
Mashatq Ahmad. Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. List has been revised. None appeared to press this application on behalf of the applicant. Heard learned A.G.A. for the State respondent.2. The present application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of case no. 879A of 1994 under Section 323, 498-A IPC, pending in the court of A.C.J.M. II, Allahabad.3. This Court, vide order dated 16.7.1996, had issued notice to the opposite party no. 3 granting interim order. Office report dated 24.8.1997 shows that notice issued to the opposite party no. 3 has not been received back after service. No counter affidavit has been filed till date.4. It has been averred in the application that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. 5. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submission made at the bar rel...
Satya Prakash Singh @ Rinku, and Another. Vs. State of U.P. and Anothe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer that the order dated 17.7.2010 passed by the trial court (Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No. IV, Court Room No. 13, Sultanpur) passed in Sessions Trial No. 415 of 2009, whereby the application moved by the accused petitioners under section 173 (8) and 91 Cr.P.C. has been rejected, be quashed. 3. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are facing a murder trial along with certain other persons under sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 I.P.C. and according to the prosecution case, the report of the incident was lodged on 10.10.2009 at 9.30 pm. at the concerned police station and the Special Report of the incident was immediately sent to the higher officers by wireless set. A record of such messages is kept in a log book maintained at the Control Room of the Police Line and t...
Ashok Shah. Vs. Mubarak Ahmad.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. List revised. None appears to press the present petition on behalf of the applicant. Learned AGA is present for the State-respondent. 2. When the present petition was filed, this Court had issued notices and further proceedings of the matter was stayed vide order dated 02.08.1994. However, till date, no counter affidavit has been filed. 3. The present petition has been filed for quashing of the proceedings of criminal case no. 4263 of 1991 under sections 292, 293 and 509 IPC pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi. 4. The contention on behalf of the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Certain documents and statements have been appended in support of his contention. 5. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the ...
Smt. Sumrati Devi. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.).
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it was an accidental burn. The injured was got admitted by the husband in the hospital. The complaint was made after a month of the alleged incident. Apart from that the applicant is mother-in-law and she was living separately. The husband and wife were living separately. A copy of the rashan card has been annexed as annexure-5 to this application. 3. However, the applicant is in jail since 23.4.2010. In view of the fact and being lady she is entitled for bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. and complainant opposed the aforesaid prayer of bail on the ground that there was clear allegation against the applicant along with the co-accused that they poured petrol and set her on fire. On hearing her cry she was got admitted in the hospital by the persons who reached on the spot. On the complaint to the Human Right Commission and Higher Authorities the First Information R...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »