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.
Dr. Manoj Kumar Pande. Vs. State of U.P.and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. The present 482 petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 25.08.2010 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh, whereby the application of the applicant filed under under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been treated as a complaint case. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that when no first information report lodged by the police with regard to commission of cognizable offence, the applicant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Court concerned below, who treated the same as a Complaint Case. 2. It is next contended that the order impugned has given long rope to the police to refuse to register of first information report of cognizable offence and further the petitioner approached the Magistrate with sole prayer to direct the police to register the case and investigate the same, as it disclosed the commission of cognizable offence, therefore the Magistrate has no pow...
Qazi Mohammad Arshad. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. (U.P.) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. The present 482 petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 25.08.2010 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh, whereby the application of the applicant filed under under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been treated as a complaint case. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that when no first information report lodged by the police with regard to commission of cognizable offence, the applicant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Court concerned below, who treated the same as a Complaint Case. 2. It is next contended that the order impugned has given long rope to the police to refuse to register of first information report of cognizable offence and further the petitioner approached the Magistrate with sole prayer to direct the police to register the case and investigate the same, as it disclosed the commission of cognizable offence, therefore the Magistrate has no pow...
Pramod Gupta and ors. Vs. State of U.P.and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. and perused the record. This application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by applicants with a prayer for quashing the charge-sheet dated 7.3.2009 (Annexure 5) in case no. 1985 of 2010, case crime no. 197 of 2010, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I. P. C. , P.S. Katra, District Shahjahanpur, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/ Judicial Magistrate Tilhar, Shahjahanpur. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the opposite party no. 2 filed a non-cognizable report on 4.2.2010 at P. S.-Katra, District Shahjahanpur against the applicants as well four unknown persons on the basis of which case crime no. 197 of 2010, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I. P. C. was registered. The opposite party no. 2 moved an application before the Civil Judge (J.D.)/ Judicial Magistrate Tilhar, Shahjahanpur. under Section 155 (2) Cr. P. C. with a prayer that the concerned police station be directed to investigate the ...
Khursida Bano. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P).
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. The present 482 petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 17.07.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 17, Azamgarh, whereby the application of the applicant filed under under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been treated as a complaint case. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that when no first information report lodged by the police with regard to commission of cognizable offence, the applicant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Court concerned below, who treated the same as a Complaint Case. It is next contended that the order impugned has given long rope to the police to refuse to register of first information report of cognizable offence and further the petitioner approached the Magistrate with sole prayer to direct the police to register the case and investigate the same, as it disclosed the commission of cognizable offence, therefore the Magistrate has no p...
Anil Kumar Seth. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.).
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. The present 482 petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 25.08.2010 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh, whereby the application of the applicant filed under under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been treated as a complaint case. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that when no first information report lodged by the police with regard to commission of cognizable offence, the applicant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Court concerned below, who treated the same as a Complaint Case. 2. It is next contended that the order impugned has given long rope to the police to refuse to register of first information report of cognizable offence and further the petitioner approached the Magistrate with sole prayer to direct the police to register the case and investigate the same, as it disclosed the commission of cognizable offence, therefore the Magistrate has no pow...
Ram Gopal Sharma and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record. It appears that in case crime No. 99 of 2007, P.S. Nanauta, District Saharanpur, Investigating Officer submitted a final report against which the respondent No. 2 filed a protest petition. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Saharanpur, considered the final report as well as the protest petition, including other materials, and passed the order dated 18,01,2010, taking cognizance of the offences, under sections 323, 392, 504, 506, 427 IPC, and issued processes against the applicants, who are the police personnel. Accordingly, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the final report. 2. The summoning order seems to have been passed on the basis of the statements made by respondent No. 2 Veeram Singh and witnesses Smt. Omwati, Km. Sanjana, Rakesh Kumar and Vinod Kumar which were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate found that the statemen...
Deo Singh and Others. Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned AGA for the respondent no.1 and perused the record. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the instant revision is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 3. This is a criminal revision against the order dated 17.7.2010 passed by the Special Judge (appointed under the U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act), Jhansi in special case no. 99 of 2009, Smt. Savitri Devi vs. Deo Singh and others, under sections 395, 452, 427, 504 and 506 IPC, police station Samthar, district Jhansi, whereby the learned Special Judge refused to discharge the revisionists. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the trial instituted before the Special Court relates to a scheduled offence as defined under section 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Dacoity Affected Areas Act, (in short 'the Act'). Therefore, the Special Judge should have proceeded to hold the trial in accordance with section 7(2) of the Act, acc...
Ms Carpet Yarn Dyers, Ghosia, Bhadohi. Vs. Chief Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: "(a) a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.2.2009 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax, Allahabad, the respondent no. 1, in respect of application of the petitioner dated 8.4.2008 for waiver of interest under Section 234B and 234C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, (Annexure-1); (b) a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax, Allahabad, the respondent no. 1, to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with notification of the Central Board of Direct Taxes No. 400/234/95-IT (B) dated 23.5.1996 and not in accordance with the notification no. 400/129/2002-IT (B) dated 26.6.2006; (c) a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Income-Tax Officer, Bhadohi, the respondent no. 2, to treat the amount of Rs.3,83,304/- retained under Section 132(5) of...
Rakesh Pratap Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. Revisionists Rakesh Pratap Singh and Subhash Chandra Misra have filed this revision against the order dated 28.4.2003 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate ( Court No. 9 ) Allahabad summoning the revisionists also for the offence under Section 392 I.P.C. 2. In brief the facts as are discernible from the papers filed with revision,are that a case for the offence under Section 392 I.P.C. was registered against the revisionists as well as and one Mahendra Pratap Singh at Police Station Nawabganj, District Allahabad at Crime No. 33 of 2002. The matter was investigated and thereafter a charge-sheet was submitted only for the offence under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. After the submission of the charge-sheet, the complainant Munesh Kumar Misra moved an application before the Judicial Magistrate- I Allahabad that the cognizance for the offence under Section 392 I.P.C. may also be taken against the three accused persons, The application was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate vide or...
Simitri Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. These three writ petitions relate to the same subject matter of the claim of the petitioner and the contesting respondents on the post of Shiksha Mitra stated to be reserved for the female category. 2. Simitri Kumari, who is petitioner in Writ Petition No.21598 of 2008, is the contesting respondent in the other two writ petitions. Deepa Minj is the petitioner in the other two writ petitions. The selection relates to the year 2006. The Gram Shiksha Samiti drew a resolution under which Deepa Minj is stated to have been proposed for being appointed as Shiksha Mitra on the ground that she was the most eligible candidate in accordance with the merit drawn up in the meeting which was convened for the said purpose and accordingly she was appointed against the said post and continued to function. 3. Almost one year thereafter Simitri Kumari moved a complaint/application on the ground that she was higher in merit than Deepa Minj and, therefore, she ought to have been selected. The objection ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »