Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 1988CriLJ447
A.S. Anand, C.J.1. The appellant was tried and convicted for an offence under Section 376 R.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine the appellant was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The fine, it was directed, when realised, be paid to the prosecutrix Mst. Darshno Devi.2. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 14-4-1980, at about 11.30 a.m. while the prosecutrix Mst. Darshna Devi, then aged between 9-10 years, had gone to the jungle for grazing the cattle she was confronted by the appellant who had also gone there to graze his cattle. The appellant lifted her and took her to a greed patch of land by the side of a big stone and after undressing her shalwar gagged her mouth and committed rape on her. That she bled from her vagina and her cry attracted to the spot her uncle Bishan Dass PW who was cutting leaves of a mulberry tree nearby. He came to the spot and on s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 1988CriLJ987
ORDERA.S. Anand, C.J.1. Does a decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained by the husband subsequent to an order for maintenance obtained by the wife under Section 488 Cr. P.C ipso facto cancel that order and deprives her to claim maintenance, is the meaningful question which requires determination in this revision petition?2. The facts are short and not in dispute. The petitioner is the husband of respondent 1 and father of respondent 2. The parties were married as far back as in 1958 and six children were born out of the wedlock. Subsequently the relationship between the husband and wife became strained and according to the wife the cause of strained relations was that the husband had kept a mistress by the name Mato Devi and on that account had turned her out of the matrimonial house. On 14-8-1980, the wife filed an application for maintenance under Section 488 Cr. P.C. claiming maintenance for herself and her minor daughter who was living with her. The application was resist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 1988CriLJ1395
ORDERS.M. Rizvi, J.1. In this petition under Section 561-A of the cr.p.c., filed for quashing the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Srinagar, dated 3-1-1987, the following order was passed by this Court on 18-3-1987:For the reasons to be given lateron in a detailed judgment, the order impugned dated 3rd of Jan. 1987, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Srinagar, rejecting the application of the petitioner for release of his Printing Press known as Falah Aam Press, Bemina, is hereby quashed under the inherent powers of the court under Section 561-A of the Cr.P.C. so as to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. The Falah Aam Printing Press which has been sealed by the police is ordered to be released in favour of the person from 'whose possession it has been sealed.2. The reasons for quashing the impugned order dated 3-1-1987 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, are, as follows:1)On 25-12-1986 the Police arrested the Editor, Printer and Publisher of a daily newspaper known ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 1988CriLJ1552
ORDERS.M. Rizvi, J.1. This is a motion for the admission of a criminal revision directed against the order dt. 9-12-1986 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Sub Registrar), Srinagar, rejecting an application of the petitioner for summoning of some witnesses on his behalf in the proceedings taken under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., and also against the order dt 26-12-1986 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Srinagar, dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the learned Magistrate as mentioned above.2. It appears, that on the application of the petitioner proceedings Under Section 145 Cr.P.C. have been taken by the learned Enquiry Magistrate against the respondent in respect of a shop belonging to the Municipality, Srinagar. The said shop was somewhere in, 1971, or even before that allotted by the Srinagar Municipality to one Sona Ullah Bhat, who entered into partnership with the petitioner for running some business in that shop som...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1989J& K25
ORDERS.M. Rizvi, J. 1. In this CMP, which is supported by an affidavit, a prayer has been made by the petitioner/defendant that the delay in entering his appearance in the Court upon a summons received by him under Order 37, C.P.C. be condoned in his favour, inter alia, on the following grounds : --(1) That he was served on 3rd Dec., 1986, at New Delhi. (2) Thai he sent his power of attorney and other relevant papers to his Advocate for appearing and defending the case at Srinagar. (3) That his Advocate received the power of attorney and other papers on 17th Dec., 1986, and the delay in receiving the papers was caused due to bad weather. (4) That in the said circumstances, the application for leave to enter appearance and to defend the suit could not be filed within the prescribed period. 2. The respondent plaintiff has resisted the petition, inter alia, on the following grounds : --'(1) That in the petitions the defendant has averred that he got the notice and the copy of the plaint a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1988J& K66
ORDERA.S. Anand, C.J. 1. This revision petition is directed against an order of the learned District Judge, Jammu, dated 2-11-1985, whereby he has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner seeking withdrawal of the petition filed by her under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. The parties to the petition were married on 17-1-1974 but subsequently it appears, their relations became strained. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Jammu and Kashmir Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the Court of learned District Judge, Jammu, seeking a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. It appears that the respondent had earlier filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act in the Court of District Judge, Jammu, which was pending when the petitioner filed her petition because the fact of the pendency of the husband's petition was not known to the petitioner. 3. The petition filed by the petitioner was transferred for its disposal to the learnedSeco...
Tag this Judgment!