Jharkhand Court March 2007 Judgments
Debabrata Saha, Vs. State of Jharkhand and Sonali Saha @ Mithu
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR1324; 2007CriLJ3560; [2007(2)JCR298(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of he Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initialed against them vide C.P. Case No. 445 of 2005 and the order dated 06.07.2005b whereby learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has taken cognizance for the offences under Section 498 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners and summons were issued directing their appearance for facing trial.2. The main ground advanced by the petitioners is the ground relating to jurisdiction, claiming that the learned court below did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the opposite party No. 2 for initiating proceedings against the petitioners on account of the fact that no cause of action arose or accrued to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned court below.3. Facts of the case briefly stated is that the complainant/...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Rai Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR1352; [2007(2)JCR295(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings pending against him in Excise Case No. 65 of 2005 including the order dated 14.11.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby the learned court below has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 47(A) of the Excise Act. The basic ground on which the instant application has been filed, is that the impugned order of cognizance is against the provision of Section 96 of the (Bihar) Excise Act, 1915, since the prosecution report has been filed beyond the period of six months from the date of the alleged offence.2. Facts of the case briefly stated is that in the night of 30.6.2005 a raid was conducted at the house of the petitioner by the officials of the Excise Department and in course of search, certain quantities of packets of illicit liquor were found and the same were seized. The petitioner had allegedly managed to escape from the back door of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ranisati Pipe Industries Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR1248; [2007(3)JCR345(Jhr)]
Permod Kohli, J. 1. Aggrieved of the order dated 04.04.2006 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1046 of 2006 dismissing the writ petition, the appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order.2. The appellant is a small scale manufacturing unit, registered with the Directorate of Industries in the State of Jharkhand having its industrial unit at Jamshedpur. The State of Jharkhand through the Department of Water Resources issued N.I.T., inviting tenders/quotations under No. 12/Pur-Pipes & Fittings for purchase of P.V.C. Pipes with ISI/ISO 9001:2000 Certification. This N.I.T. was for an Emergent Quotation Notice. The date for supply of documents was stipulated as 17.02.2006 to 21.02.2006 and the last date for receipt of the bid was 22.02.2006 upto 3:00 P.M. and the opening of the bid was on the same day i.e. 22.02.2006 at 3:30 P.M. in the Office of the Secretary, Water Resources Department (Government of Jharkhand), Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi. The bids were to be submitted in tw...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Kant Gopalka Vs. the State of Jharkhand and Mukhtar Ahmad
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR1616; [2007(3)JCR443(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Both these application arising out of the same case are taken up together for disposal at the stage of admission.In Cr. M.P. No. 217 of 2006, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceedings pending against him pursuant to the order of cognizance dated 10.6.2005 vide TR No. 1021 of 2005 (Complaint case No. 739 of 2004) for offences under Sections 420/379/120B IPC, presently pending in the court of Sri M.C. Jha, judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh.In Cr.M.P. No. 908 of 2006, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 22.4.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, in Criminal Revision No. 21 of 2006 affirming the order dated 19.11.2006 passed by Sri M.C. Jha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in T.R. No. 1021 of 2005 whereby petitioner's prayer for protection under Section 205 Cr. P. C. has been rejected.The primary ground advanced by the petitioner in support of his prayer is that the continuance of the criminal proceedings ...
Tag this Judgment!Ehsan Ansari Vs. State of Jharkhand and Rehana Parvin
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR1599; II(2007)DMC751; [2007(4)JCR479(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner in this application has prayed for quashing the order dated 15.9.2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro, in Maintenance Case No. 39 of 2003 whereby prayer of the Opposite Party No. 2 for allowing certain amendments to be carried out in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed.2. The factual background of the case is that the opposite party No. 2 Claiming herself to be the wife of the petitioner has filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P. C. along with Sections 3, 4, 5 of the Muslim Women's (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986, which is pending enquiry before the learned court below. While seeking to make amendment, the opposite party No. 2 has wanted to delete the words 'And under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. 1986' appearing in the cause title after the name and address of the opposite party and after the words Cr.P.C. She has also wante...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Prasad Sharma and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand,
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR1853
Permod Kohli, J.1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections of 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, thirty persons (Workmen) have filed this petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the officials of M/s. Jardine Henderson Ltd. (MEAMECO Division), Barwa Road, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as the Company)2. The petitioners are the workmen of the Company. A dispute was raised by the Union regarding retrenchment of certain workers. The dispute came to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad by the appropriate Government on 3.2.1988. The reference was answered against the workmen and in favour of the Management. The Union preferred C.W.J.C. No. 1408 of 1994(R) challenging the Award of the Industrial Tribunal before this Court. This writ petition was decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 23.8.2002 in which following observations/directions were issued:12. In the aforesaid...
Tag this Judgment!Killo D' Kamani Vs. State of Jharkhand and Raju Kumar Pandey
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR1569; [2007(3)JCR557(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceeding initiated against him vide C/1 case No. 921 of 2001 and for setting aside the orders dated 26.9.2001 and 20.7.2004 whereby summons were ordered to be issued directing him to appear and face trial in the proceeding which is pending in the court of Sri Prafulla Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur.2. The main ground of challenge is that the case has been instituted against the petitioner by the opposite party No. 2 by way of a revenge and with mala fide intentions and is an abuse of the process of the court and further, that even on the basis of the entire allegation in the complaint, no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioner and since the dispute relates to breach of an agreement of employment, a civil liability at best can be raised and the alleged breach of terms of agreement does not call for criminal liability...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Narayan Pandey Vs. State of Bihar Now Jharkhand Through Cbi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR2076; 2007CriLJ3993; [2007(4)JCR474(Jhr)]
R.R. Prasad, J.1. The sole appellant was put on trial to face charges under Sections 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation that the appellant by putting his LTI on the pay slip of the complainant Indradeo Yadav took out wages of Rs. 2929/- of the complainant and that the appellant on demand took Rs. 200/- as illegal gratification. The trial court while acquitting for the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, did find the appellant guilty for the charges under Sections 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years on each count and also sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.2. The case of the complainant Indradeo Yadad (P.W.5) is that he was...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Pyare Singh, Vs. State of Bihar Now Jharkhand Through Cbi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR1590
R.R. Prasad, J.1. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by common judgment as they arise out of the same judgment and order passed by Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad in R.C. No. 9 1985(D) whereby the appellants were convicted under Sections 120B, 420, 471 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and further to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- so far it relates to offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further two months. The appellants Dwarika Nath Mukherjee and Aditya Singh (in Cr.App.No. 239 of 1999) and Sukumar Banerjee (in Cr. App.No. 287 of 1999) were also convicted under Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.2. All the four appellants along with Narayan Prasad Choubey (since dead) and Sri...
Tag this Judgment!Bali Puran and ors. Vs. Saheba Puran and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BLJR2197; [2008(1)JCR60(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioners in this application have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings pending against them in the court of the Subdivisional Magistrate, Bundu, Ranchi, in Misc. Petition No. MP.6/06/M-92 of 2006 as also the order dated 3.11.2006 passed in the case by the learned court below whereby direction was issued to the officer in charge Arki PS, to auction sell the standing paddy crops over the disputed land.2. The main ground on which the continuance of the proceeding as also the order dated 3.11.2006 has been challenged is that the learned court below has failed to apply judicial mind and has, in fact, exceeded its jurisdiction in initiating the proceedings and passing the aforesaid impugned order without considering the fact that earlier for the same disputed land, two separate proceedings, under Section 144 Cr.P.C. were initiated and were decided in favour of the present petitioners and against the respondents.3. It may be mentioned that notices to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »