Jharkhand Court February 2013 Judgments
Ramendra Kumar Vs. Deputy Commissioner Cum Progra
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.S. No. 6841 of 2011 Ramendra Kumar ..Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner cum Programme Coordinator N.T.S., Ramgarh & Others .Respondents ----- Coram:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents :JC to AAG ----- I.A. No. 3719/2011 & I.A. No. 181/2012 07/05.02.2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press instant I.A. No. 3719/2011 & I.A. No. 181/2012. Accordingly the same are dismissed as not pressed. W.P.S. No. 6841 of 2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection. Permission is granted. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. ( Narendra Nath Tiwari, J) Rakesh/...
Tag this Judgment!Pila Pahan and Others Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 764 o1. Pila Pahan 2. Anmol Pahan 3. Anup Kerketta Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent ------ CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR ------ For the Appellant: Ms. J.Mazumdar For the Respondents: Mr. Vibhuti Shankar Sahay ----- 09/Dated 5th February1. Present appeal has already been admitted vide order dated 31st July, 2013. Record and proceedings of S.T. No. 100/2009 was called for from the trial court so as to appreciate the arguments on the prayer for suspension of sentence under section 389 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The present appellants have been convicted vide order dated 12th June, 2012 in S.T. No. 100 of 2009 by Pr. Sessions Judge, Simdega and they were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life under section 302/34 of the I.P.C.3. Records and proceedings of S.T. No. 100 of 2009 have been received and we have perused the same.4. Ha...
Tag this Judgment!Usha Kumari Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI Cr.M.PNo.1640of2010 UshaKumariSharma.............. Petitioner Versus StateofJharkhand&Ors Opp.Parties Coram: HonbleMr.JusticeR.R.Prasad ForthePetitioner :Mr.V.P.Singh,Sr.Advocate Mrs.RashmiKumar,Advocate FortheState :Mr.APP 9./05.02.2013 Heardlearnedseniorcounselappearingforthepetitionerandthe learnedcounselfortheState. Thisapplicationisdirectedagainsttheorderdated05/10/2010, passed in Complaint Case No. 340/2007, by which order the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, discharged the accused persons/opposite partiesfromtheaccusation. It appears that a complaint was filed alleging therein that the oppositepartiessubjectedthecomplainanttotortureonaccountofnon fulfillment of the demand of dowry. Upon it a case was registered as Complaint Case No. 340/2007, in which cognizance of the offence punishableunderSection498AoftheIndianPenalCodewastakenagainst theoppositeparties.Thereupon,thesummonswereissued.Onreceiving summons,theoppositepartiesfailedtoappearbef...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Oraon Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A.No. 37 of 2013 Dilip Oraon. ... ... ...Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand. ... ... ...Opp. Party ---------- CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY For the Petitioner: Mr. Bijay Kr. Mishra, Advocate. For the State: A.P.P. ---------- 03/ 05.02.2013 The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner has been prosecuted for causing torture and treating the Complainant with cruelty for want of dowry demanded in terms of motorcycle and Palang (cot). It is submitted that the petitioner has already remained in custody since 3.8.2012 and the allegation levelled against him are of general nature. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. Considering the matrimonial nature of the offence as well as period of detention of the petitioner in Jail custody, he is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- ( Ten tho...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Das Alias Raj Kumar Harijan Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI B.A.No.740of2013 RajKumarDas@RajKumarHarijan .... .... . Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand .... .... .... Opp.Party CORAM:HON'BLEMRS.JUSTICEJAYAROY ForthePetitioner :Mr.PradeepKumarVerma,Advocate FortheOpp.Party :A.P.P. 02/05.02.2013 Heard counsel appearingforthepetitionerandcounsel appearingfortheState. Petitioner is an accused in this case registered under Sections457/372/373/34oftheIndianPenalCode. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that thoughtheallegationwasmadethatthepetitioneralongwithother personshastakenthedaughteroftheinformant,whoisonly1213 yearsold,butthegirlherselfstatedinherstatementrecordedunder Section164oftheCodeofCriminalProcedurethatsheis19yearsold and she has gone with the petitioner Raj Kumar Das @ Raj Kumar Harijanandmarriedwithhiminatemple. Thestatementrecorded underSection164oftheCodeofCriminalProcedureofthevictimgirl isannexedinthisapplicationasAnnexure2. Counsel appearing for the State has not disputed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Md Aashique Ansari Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B.A. No. 2756 of 2012 Md. Aashique Ansari .... Petitioner Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr ..... .... Opposite parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey For the State : Mr. Moti Gope , APP For the O.P. No. 2: Mr. Binoda Nand Tiwari 6/05.02.2013: Anticipatory bail application filed by petitioner Md. Aashique Ansari in connection with C.P. Case No. 864 of 2011 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad is moved by Sri Kamdeo Pandey and opposed by Sri Moti Gope, learned Additional P.P. and Sri Binoda Nand Tiwari, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2. Earlier the matter was referred to Mediation Centre, Civil Court, Dhanbad and interim order passed in favour of the petitioner. However, from perusal of the report of the Mediation Centre, Dhanbad, it appears that petitioner did not appear before it for conciliation though O.P. No. 2 was present on two occasions. Thus, it appears that ...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswati Developers Pvt Ltd Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. W.P. (C) No. 777 of 2013 Saraswati Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi Petitioner -V e r s u s- State of Jharkhand & Others Respondents. CORAM: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT. For the Petitioner : - M/s. S. Verma and Navin Kr., Advocates. For the Respondent nos. 1 to 4: - Mr. Rajesh Kumar. 02/05.02.2013 The petitioner by way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 28.01.2013, passed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi in Mutation Appeal Case No. 49 R 15/2012-13 (Annexure-4) of this writ petition, whereby the learned L.R.D.C., Ranchi allowed the appeal filed by Kedar Nath Nayak & others and set aside the order dated 30th December, 2011 passed by the Circle Officer, Namkom in Mutation Case No. 3152 R 2./ 2011-12. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order has been pass...
Tag this Judgment!Parwati Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar Mandal ? Raj Kumar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI F.ANo.199of2009 RajKumar Vs.ParvatiDevi With F.ANo.183of2010 ParwatiKumari@ParwatiDevi Vs.RajKumar CORAM: HON'BLETHECHIEFJUSTICE HON'BLEMR.JUSTICEALOKSINGH FortheAppellantInF.ANo.199/2009:Mr.SumeetGadodia FortheRespondentsInF.ANo.199/2009:Mr.D.K.Prasad FortheAppellantInF.ANo.183/2010:Mr.D.K.Prasad FortheRespondentsInF.ANo.183/2010:Mr.SumeetGadodia OrderNo.16 Dated5th February,2013 Learnedcounselfortherespondentsubmits thatthoughhe has moved an application before the learned Judicial Magistrte, seeking permission to withdraw the complaint, but on that applicationnoorderhasbeenpassed. LearnedcounselfortheappellantsubmitsthatthisCourtmay pass order quashing the criminal proceeding because of the compromise arrived at between the parties by exercising power underArticle226thoughitisafirstappeal. Toenlightenonthislegalissue,learnedcounselfortheparties aregiventime.Putupthesecaseson11.2.2013. (Prakash Tatia, C.J.) (Alok Singh, J.) dey...
Tag this Judgment!Aziz Guddu Alias Azijul Rahman Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A.No.240 of 2013 Aziz Guddu @ Azijul Rahman. ... ... ...Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand. ... ... ...Opp. Party ---------- CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY For the Petitioner: Mrs. Gauri Devi, Advocate. For the State: A.P.P. ---------- 02/ 05.02.2013 The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 33/41/42/52 of the Indian Forest Act and under Section 4(1)A/21(1)6 of the M.M.D.R. Act. It is disclosed in the written report that after receiving information that some persons are indulged in illegal mining of iron ore, the place of occurrence was raided by the police. The accused persons present at the site have succeeded to flee away but a Dumper bearing registration not ORO9J-7821 loaded with 2 M.T. iron ore was seized. Some instruments and equipments used for mining have also been seized. It is submitted that the petitioner happens to be the owner of Dumper seized...
Tag this Judgment!Helena Lakra Vs. Industries or Finance Department
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.5465 of 2012 Helena Lakra . Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand & Ors. ...Respondents Coram : The Honble Mr. Justice Narendra Nath Tiwari For the Petitioner : Mr.L.K.Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : J.C. to G.A. ----- I.A. no.395 o5. 05.02.2013 In this application, the petitioner has prayed for addition of prayer in the writ petition. It has been stated that the petitioner has filed the writ petition for issuing proper orders regarding the promotions to the petitioner, which were required for appropriate calculation and payment of the service terminal benefits and post retiral dues to the petitioner. It has been submitted that during pendency of the writ petition, the respondents have issued orders giving benefits of first and second Assured Career Progression Scheme and Modified Assured Career Progression. The petitioner has, thus, prayed for addition of prayer in the writ petition in view of the said sanction of the promotiona...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »