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.
Chhatrapal Pasi. Vs. Stat of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.).
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. Thereafter his name appeared in the confessional statement of co-accused on whose pointing out the dead body was recovered.Thereafter police fabricated the recovery and also recorded the confessional statement of the applicant in order to show involvement of the applicant in this case. 3. Learned A.G.A. contended that applicant was also involved in committing the murder of the deceased. Besides confessional statement there is recovery of axe on the pointing out of the applicant which was used in committing the murder of the deceased. 4. Recovery has been shown on 9.3.2010 and date of occurrence is 13.2.2010. Applicant is not named in the F.I.R. Applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 9.3.2010. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case andsubmissions made by the learned ...
In the Matter Of: Can Mutual Fund Limited (In Liquidation). Vs.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. Twenty one winding up petitions were filed before the Lucknow Bench of this Court for winding up of M/S Incan Group of Companies & Others. In the said batch of petitions Company Petition No. 15 of 2000 was the main petition. 2. The aforesaid Company Petitions were disposed of vide judgment and order dated 15.1.2003 and the Company was ordered to be wound up. Thereafter the records of the petitions were transmitted to Allahabad and the above main Company Petition No. 15 of 2000 was renumbered as Company Petition No. 27 of 2007. Similarly, other Company Petitions are also renumbered. 3. In the renumbered Company Petition No. 29 of 2007 an application No. 122457 of 2010 has been moved by Sri Anurag Asthana on behalf of creditors (investors/depositors) for early settlement of their claims. 4. Sri R.N. Shukla, learned counsel for the Official Liquidator prays for and is allowed two weeks time to file reply to the aforesaid application. 5. A Company application No. 12 of 2006 under Rule 7...
Raghunath Yadav. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.).
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. The prayers for bail in these connected appeals is being disposed of by a common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Shyam Dube, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the Trial Court record. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that this case is of circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances is not complete and the circumstances are not sufficient to connect the appellants with this crime. 4. The deceased Jawahar Shah left his home at about 8 p.m. on 2.8.2004 as usual to do chaukidari in the Brick Kiln of Smt. Girja Shahi. When he did not return home, the next morning his son/informant Satyendra Kumar (P.W.1) searched for him. He was told that some blood was lying in the field of Billar Bhagat. The head of the deceased was found in the field of Billar Bhagat and the body was found in the sugar-cane field of Ramashray (P.W.3). Ramashray claims to have heard the appellants talking with each oth...
Mool Chandra Jain, and Others. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.).
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. List revised. None appears to press the present petition on behalf of the applicants. Learned AGA is present for the State-respondent. 2. The present 482 Petition has been filed for quashing of the proceedings of case crime no. 803 of 1999 under sections 323, 324, 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar. 3. This Court vide order dated 15.03.1994 had issued notices and had stayed further proceedings of aforesaid case. However, till date, no counter affidavit has been filed. 4. It is contended in the petition that applicant no. 3 had married the daughter of Jainendra Kumar Jain in April, 1993, but she was not physically fit for being married for which differences arose between the parties and ultimately the husband initiated proceedings for dissolution of the marriage under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act and it is contended that as a counter blast, present criminal prosecution has been drawn against the applicant, which is ...
Jai Ram. Vs. State of U.P. and Another.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. The question of law which has been mooted for consideration in this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. by the applicant is as to whether or not after submission of charge sheet, further investigation can be conducted by the police. This question no longer remain resintegra as time and again it has been settled by the Apex court. In case of Ram Lal Narang versus State Delhi Administration 1979 SC 1791 and JAC Saldhana versus State of Bihar AIR 1980 SC 326 this has been so held that further investigation is permissible even after report under section 173 (2) of the Code has been submitted. 2. The grievance of the applicant is that S.H.O. has not taken permission from the court and the application by S.H.O. was forwarded by A.P.O. who had no role to play during investigation. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of the Apex court in R. Sarala versus T.S. Velu and others 2000 U.P. Crl. Ruling 461. Learned counsel for the applicant laid special em...
Pitamber Singh. Vs. PravIn Shankar Rai; Regional Transport Officer; Bi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. Sri A.C. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel has filed a short counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite party, Praveen Shankar Rai, A.R.T.O. (Enforcement), Bijnor. The same is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri A.C. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party. 3. The Apex Court in the case of Paramajit Bhasin and others versus Union of India and others, reported in 2006 (1) AWC 158 (SC), in paragraph 12 directed that the State Government should make necessary arrangements to ensure that the compounding of overloading which was held to be an offence no longer continued. It further directed that the State Government should withdraw such notification of compounding and should ensure that no vehicle overloaded is allowed on road. Pursuant thereto, when the State of U.P. was not making necessary compliance of the judgment of the Apex Court, writ petitions were filed, one of them being Writ Petition No.53211 of 2008, Pitamber Singh versus State...
israr Ahmad, and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.).
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
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 Case Crime No. 47 of 2010 under Sections 147, 323, 379, 427, 504, 506 and 452 I.P.C., P.S. Karma, district Sonbhadra. 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 the petitioners 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...
Vinod Singh. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.).
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. As per F.I.R. version four persons including the applicant were armed with Balam but one incised wound has been found in the postmortem report of deceased Lal Bhadhur and it is not clear who is the author of the said injury. 3. Learned A.G.A. contended that applicant was also involved in committing the murder of the deceased and inflicting the injuries to the injured persons. 4. As per F.I.R. version four persons including the applicant were armed with Balam but one incised wound has been found in the postmortem report. Applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 4.4.2010. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitl...
Ramesh. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.).
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the F.I.R. there is general allegation against all the accused persons but witness Amar Singh in his statement stated that co-accused Harish Chandra had fired shot which hit on the chest of the deceased. It is further contended that ante mortem injury no.3 has not been explained which is stab wound. 3. Learned Private Counsel for the complainant contended that there was motive on the part of the applicant and all the accused persons have fired shot and thereafter co-accuse 4. Learned A.G.A. has supported the same facts. 5. The main allegation is against the co-accused Harish Chandra and case of the applicant is distinguishable from the co-accused Harish Chandra. Applicant is in jail since 5.5.2010. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by th...
Virendra Singh. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State respondent. 2. The present 482 Petition has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 06.02.1991 filed in case No. 641 of 1991 under sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 I.P.C. pending before the 3rd A.C.J.M., Mathura and also for quashing of the order dated 01.12.1993. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that no such incident as alleged has taken place and the present criminal prosecution has been initiated against the applicant by the opposite party only for harassing the applicant. 4. 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 relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »