Chhattisgarh Court November 2002 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.
Pradeep Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT53(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. Heard analogously alongwith M.Cr.C. Nos. 1952/2002, 1981/2002 and 1982/2002.2. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC for quashing the charge-sheet as well as FIR/challan on the ground that the applicant has not committed any offence.3. The prosecution story is that in village Charsikhara of Kunkuri Janapad Panchayat while drought/scarcity relief work was being carried out, one Village Assistant namely Toppo had prepared forged muster rolls in collusion with Salesman namely F. Kerketta and rice was distributed. It is alleged that by forged signatures and thumb impressions of labourers they misappropriated 35 quintals of rice with the help of Dhaneshwar, Hemanth Yadav and Ravi Shankar Yadav. The matter was examined by S.D.O. concerned and the S.D.O. lodged report to the Station House Officer. The S.H.O. after a detailed investigation filed challan and as many as 13 persons have been arraigned as accused persons. The enquiry report goes to show that...
Anant Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ668CG; 2003(1)MPHT56(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. Heard.2. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for a direction commanding respondents to paygratuity and pension in respect of his son who died in service while he was working as an employee of the respondents.3. Petitioner's son namely Sanjay Kumar Mishra was serving as Lecturer in Govt. Higher Secondary School, Raigarh. He died in harness. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is the nominee and he has not been paid the gratuity and pension.4. So far as the gratuity is concerned it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled under the first proviso to Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act is pertinent here which provides as under:--'4. Payment of gratuity.-- (1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years,--(a) On his superannuation, or (b) On his ret...
Bahuran Vs. Smt. Shiv Kanti and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT64(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. Heard. 2. The applicant has filed this petition against the order dated 25-6-2002 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Janjgir. 3. The respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.PC for grant of maintenance from the petitioner. The learned Trial Court dismissed the application by order dated 4-7-2001. Against the said order, the respondent No. 1 filed a revision before the Revisional Court which is still pending. However, the Revisional Court on 25-6-2002 passed an interim order by which the respondent No. 1 is permitted to produce certain documents in the case. One of the question arose was whether the marriage of the applicant with respondent had taken place before the death of first wife or subsequent thereto. During the pendency of the revision, the respondent filed a death certificate of Durgabai to contend that she had died before her marriage. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant/husband contended that the Revisional Court was not just...
Mannulal Vs. Matibai Yadav
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT58(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. Heard on LA. No. 3776/2002 for urgent hearing.2. Application is allowed. 3. Heard. 4. The revision is against the order dated 27-5-2002 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, whereby an application for stay of the operation of the order granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month has been rejected by the Court. The object of grant of maintenance is so that a wife is able to maintain herself. The non-applicant is the wife of the applicant that has not been disputed. The Court having considered facts and circumstances of the case declined to grant stay and rejected the applicant. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Court was not justified in rejecting the application and it ought to have issued notice to the other side. 6. The discretion vests with the Court and this is to be exercised keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. The grant of stay or otherwise depends on various factors. In the instant c...
Arvind Bhai Selarka Vs. Dilip Gogad and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3360; 2003(1)MPHT60(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. Heard.2. This revision under Section 482, Cr.PC has been filed against the order dated 15-6-2002 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Revision No. 84/2002 whereby the order dated 23-11-2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Class-I, Durg has been affirmed. 3. The applicant is facing prosecution under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The allegation against him is that he has issued a crossed cheque in favour of the complainant and the said cheque was sent to the Bank where on presentation, it was dishonoured on the ground that sufficient funds are not available. Notice was sent on 8-4-1999 and it was returned refused on 12-4-1999 and thereafter the complaint has been filed. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that since the noticewas not served, the complaint is not maintainable. The objection was raisedregarding registration of the case on the ground that the notice was not servedon him and it was prayed that the appl...
Prem Singh Chouhan Vs. L.M. Pandey
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-14-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT38(CG)
ORDER1. Heard.2. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 9-11-2001 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Durg whereby a direction has been issued by the Court to the Lokayukt, Raipur to enquire into the matter.3. The brief facts of the case are that the defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for the sale of a Nazul plot owned by defendant for Rs. 24,00,000/-. It is contended that the defendant obtained Rs. 9,00,000/-in advance from the plaintiff but thereafter the rest amount was not paid to the defendant. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance along with anapplication under Order 39 Rules (1) and (2) for temporary injunction. The defendant filed an application seeking direction for enquiry against the plaintiff regarding the source of funds by itself or income through the Income Tax Department and other Government machinery. The contention of the plaintiff was that such application was not maintainable as enquiry regarding his cond...
Sushil and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-14-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC250
ORDERK.H.N. Kuranga, C.J.1. Heard both the Counsels.This application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of bail by the applicants,, who are the accused in Crime No. 136/2002/ registered in Police Station Kawardha, for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.2. The name of the deceased is Kanti Bai, wife of applicant No. 1. It is the case of the prosecution that she committed suicide by consuming poison on 21.6.2002 as the applicants harassed and tortured her demanding dowry. It is also the case of the prosecution that the deceased was issueless and on account of that the applicants were torturing her.3. Learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the inquest was held on 21.6.2002. During the inquest the relatives of the deceased were present and they did not make any complaint of demand of dowry by the applicants, which is not disputed by the Warned Counsel for the respondent/State. The only allegation against the applicants is th...
Samaruram Kewat Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)MPHT8(CG)
ORDERK.H.N. Kuranga, C.J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant.2. This is an application under Section 439, Cr.PC filed by the applicant for grant of bail. The applicant and other accused persons namely Budharu, Hari and Toshi have been charge-sheeted before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323 and 342 of IPC3. It is submitted that the learned JMFC granted bail to the applicant and other accused persons. They failed to appear on 7-6-2000 and non-bailable warrants were issued against them. All of them were arrested on 18-9-2002 and they were produced before the Court. The applicant and other accused persons filed bail application which came to be rejected by the JMFC. Thereafter they approached the Special Judge and the learned Special Judge, Durg granted bail to other accused persons namely Budharu, Hari and Toshi and rejected the application of the applicant on the ground that if he is released he may abs...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›