Allahabad Court September 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.
Ashok and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-2010
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 summoning order dated 9.6.2009, passed in case no.416/IX of 2008, under Sections 452,323, 429, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504, 506 IPC as well as for quashing of the order dated 30.6.2010, passed by 3rd Additional Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Mathura, in case no.1064/IX of 2009, under Sections 452, 323, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present criminal proceedings is nothing but as a counter blast to the proceedings initiated by the applicant's side against the opposite party no.2 which is nothing but gross misuse of the process of law. It is further contended that the applicants are residents of Haryana and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. 3. The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has bee...
Harpal Singh and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent. The present 482 Petition has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 17.04.2010 filed in case crime no. 198 of 2010 under sections 420,467, 468, 471, 506, 120B IPC pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur.2. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the opposite party no. 2 got forged sale deed executed in his favour regarding the land of the applicant and when the applicant came to know of the aforesaid fact, he filed the suit for cancellation of sale deed being civil suit no. 273 of 2009 (Harpal Singh v. Sunder Singh) before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) City Saharanpur.3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the matter is purely of civil nature for which criminal prosecution has been illegally initiated by the opposite party no. 2, which is bad in law. Learned A.G.A. has contended that the applicants had taken loan of plot in q...
Hanif and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondent. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 3.5.2010, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Aligarh in Complaint Case No.172 of 2010, Mohd. Faraheem v. Hanif and others, under Section 406 IPC.2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are residents of Bayapariyan-Gulawati, District Bulandshahar, had initiated proceedings against the opposite party no.2, who was working as a servant with them and when the applicants have gone to Hapur, the opposite party no2 had taken away valuable movable property of the applicants, which application was filed on 23.10.2009 and as a counter blast, the present criminal prosecution has been initiated against the applicants, which is bad in law. 3. The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present p...
Kishan Kant and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent. The present application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of case no. 208 of 2008 under Section 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC, P.S. Kampil District Farrukhabad pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kaimganj, Farrukhabad. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the present criminal prosecution of the applicants, at the behest of opposite party no. 2, is nothing but is a counter blast, which, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is also contended that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contentions. 3. 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 applicants. All the submissio...
Mukesh. Vs. State of U.P.and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the Staterespondent. The present 482 Petition has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 13.05.2010 in case no. 1872 of 2010 (State v. Mahesh and others) under sections 307, 504, 506 IPC pending before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist, Mathura. 2. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been charged under section 307 IPC , but it is a no injury case. It s further argued that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. 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...
Radhey Shyam and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent. The present application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of complaint case no. 74 of 2010 under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC, pending in the court of A.C.J.M. III, Jaunpur and also for quashing of summoning order dated 26.7.2010. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the present criminal prosecution of the applicants, at the behest of opposite party no. 2, is nothing but is a counter blast, which, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is also contended that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contentions. 3. 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 applicants. All the su...
Parvez and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of criminal case no. 6339 of 2009 in N.C.R. No. 22/2009 (State v. Parvez and others) under sections 504, 506, 427 IPC pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that charged Sections are bail able Sections and the learned Magistrate may pass an order taking cognizance if he so desires by proceeding under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further contended that the order impugned has been challenged and reliance has been placed on explanation 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is next contended that no permission was taken under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. and charge sheet has been submitted in non-cognizable offence.2. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon a Judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (64) ACC 296 M...
Rafiq and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA for the State respondent. Present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of complaint case no.753 of 2010, Kallu Raien v. Ahmad and others, under Sections 323, 504 IPC, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Konch, District Jalaun. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contentions. 3. 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 applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the ...
Pramod and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of complaint case no.1026 of 2010, under Sections 323, 352, 506 IPC and also for quashing the summoning order dated 7.7.2010, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the present proceedings is nothing but as a counter blast to the proceedings initiated by the applicant's side against the opposite party no.2 which is nothing but gross misuse of the process of law. 3. The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. 4. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage i...
RavindrA. Vs.State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent. By the present application under Section 482,Cr.P.C. the applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer that the summoning order dated 9.2.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III, Gautam Budh Nagar in criminal case no. 9140 of 2008 under Sections 406 IPC be quashed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there are contradictions in the averments made in the first information report and in the statement of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer.2. It is also contended that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contentions. 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 o...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »