Allahabad Court December 2012 Judgments
Dataram Pandey and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
Sunil Hali, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. The applicants have come to this Court seeking quashment of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2627 of 2012, State versus Siyaram and others, under sections 504, 506 IPC P.S. Handia, District Allahabad pending in the court of ACJM, Court no. 7, Allahabad. The Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section 190B on a report submitted by the police in respect of offences which were non-cognizable. According to explanation of Section 2(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code, a report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the Magistrate has taken cognizance on this report filed under Section 190B in respect to non-cognizable offence under Sections 504 ,...
Tag this Judgment!Khem Chand Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. The petitioner was posted as a Head Constable at Police Station Loni in District Ghaziabad and was placed under suspension by the Superintendent of Police, by an order dated 20.5.1996, on the ground, that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner. Subsequently, by an order dated 22.6.1996, the petitioner was reinstated. Subsequently, for the same criminal case, the petitioner was again suspended on18th April, 1998 and was reinstated in service on 7.4.2000. The petitioner made a representation contending that for the suspension period he should be given his salary and other allowances. Since the same was not paid, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.41892 of 2006, which was disposed of by a judgment dated 29.6.2009 directing the Senior Superintendent of Police to pass appropriate orders with regard to the release of his salary and other benefits for the per...
Tag this Judgment!Prashant Kumur Katiyar and Etc. Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
1. This reference has arisen out of a conflict having been noticed by a learned Single Judge between the division bench judgment in the case of Ved Prakash Vs. Hari Krishna Singh and others Special Appeal No. 30 of 2011 decided on 19th January, 2011 at Lucknow that has partly disapproved the ratio of the decision of a learned Single Judge in the case of Raja Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 30.11.2009 reported in 2009 (10) ADJ Pg. 585, and the decision delivered by another division bench at Allahabad in the case of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. and others Special Appeal No. 146 of 2010 decided on 21st January, 2011 that arose out of the Single Judge judgment in the case of Raja Ram (supra), and has upheld the same reported in 2011 (3) ADJ Pg. 340. The judgment in the case of Ved Prakash (supra) was rendered at Lucknow two days earlier to the judgment in the case of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Allahabad (su...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
Manoj Misra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the State. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.10.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No. 239 of 2012 as also the order dated 24.4.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate / Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No.2, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No.849 of 2011 whereby the application of the petitioner, seeking discharge on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Court, has been rejected. The facts, as they appear on the record, are that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint at Ghaziabad alleging therein that three cheques drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Shah Satnamji Nagar, Sirsa were issued by the accused (the petitioner herein) in favour of the complainant for discharge of his liability, which were deposited by the complainant at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Extension Counter, Diwakar ...
Tag this Judgment!Harpal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
Manoj Misra, J. 1. I have heard Sri Raj Kumar Sharma assisted by Sri Neeraj Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Narendra Kumar Singh for the opposite party No.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. By this revision, the revisionist, who is the informant, has challenged the order dated 29.08.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Farrukhabad in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2012 connected with Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2012, whereby the opposite party No.2 (Daulat Singh) has been declared juvenile in reference to Case Crime No. 671 of 2011 at P.S. Jahanganj, District Farrukhabad.3. The facts, as they appear on the record, are that in respect to an incident dated 12.12.2011 relating to the murder of the informant's uncle, a first information report was lodged by the revisionist against six persons including the opposite party no.2 (Daulat Singh), which was registered as Case Crime No. 671 of 2011 at P.S. Jahanganj, District Farrukhabad, under Sections 147/...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Prasad and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
Het Singh Yadav,J.This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order dated 7.11.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (C.J.M.), Kaushambi in Criminal Case No. 130 of 2005 (Pawan Kumar Mishra Vs. Durga Prasad and Others) issuing process against the revisionists under Section 204 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr. P.C.) on the complaint of the Respondent No.2 2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint in the Court of C.J.M., Kaushambi on 15.1.2005 disclosing therein that he is the Member of Gram Panchayat Pashchim Sarira, District Kaushambi. Since he opposed the allotment of plots to be made by the Land Management Committee, therefore, accused persons/revisionists bore enmity with him. On 26.12.2004 at about 4.00 p.m. the complainant was going to market. When he arrived near Sabji Mandi, all the accused persons already present there surrounded him and started beating him with fists and kicks, and also with sticks. On his r...
Tag this Judgment!Guru Kripa Manufacturing Private Ltd. Vs. M/S. Duro Pipe Industries Pr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
1. This is an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure arising from an order dated 22.08.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, District Varanasi, allowing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC of the plaintiff, for injunction restraining the defendants from carrying on trade in PVC Pies with the name of 'G.K. DURO Plast' or with the name 'DP DURO Supreme' or that any name which is similar to that, fixing 4.10.2012, for framing of the issues. 2. We have heard Sri Manu Khare for the defendant-appellant. Sri Naveen Sinha assisted by Ashish Kumar Srivastava appears for the plaintiff-respondent. 3. The facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a Suit No. 25 of 2011 in the Court of District Judge, Varanasi against Guru Kripa Manufacturing Private Ltd (defendant No.1) and Sri Hari Krishna Kishore Lal Singhal (defendant No.2) alleging that the plaintiff Company is incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, and is carry...
Tag this Judgment!Shrawan Kumar @ Pappu Vs. Nirmala
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
Pankaj Mithal, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. A very peculiar suit has been filed in the court below by the petitioner. The plaint of the suit which is annexure-1 to the petition reveals that the petitioner, who is plaintiff in the suit alleges that his marriage was agreed to be solemnized with respondent No.2 but now it appears that she is likely to marry someone else and therefore, a decree of permanent injunction be passed restraining her from marrying any other person except the petitioner. It is against the order of the court in the above suit directing notices to be issued to the other side before considering the matter for grant of interim injunction that the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court. I am quite astonished at the relief which has been claimed in the suit. The suit ex facie appears to be against public policy and as such is implidely barred by Section 9 C.P.C. Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that an agreement to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›