Patna Court January 1994 Judgments

Jai Prakash Chaurasia Vs. State of Bihar and anr.

Court: Patna

Narayan Roy, J.1. In this case, a joint petition has been filed on behalf of the complainant and this petitioner for compromising the case launched by opposite party No. 2, wife of this petitioner, under Sections 498A, 406 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Now in this petition it has been stated on behalf of the wife that she is not willing to prosecute the petitioner.3. In this case, I find that the case has been instituted upon a complaint filed by opposite party No. 2.4. In this case, the petitioner is also prosecuted under Section 494 of the I.P.C. as per Section 198 of the Cr. P.C. I find that the prosecution under Section 494 of the IPC can only be initiated on the complaint made by the aggrieved party. Here, the complainant has come forward in this application before this Court showing her willingness not to proceed with the matter. I find that the offence under Sections 498A, 406 and 494 of of the IPC are not compoundable. 5. Counsel for the parties have placed reliance in ...

Shyama Singh @ Shyama Bilas Singh and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

N. Pandey, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing an order dated 12-10-1993, passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangbad, taking a decision to frame charges under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.2. It appears on 28-8-1985 one Tapeshwar Singh (opposite party No. 2) lodged a case under Sections 302, 301 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the Code'). The Police after close of investigation submitted a final report under Sections 498A, 306 and 201 of the Code. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and summoned them to face trial.3. During course of trial prosecution examined all the witnesses and the case was fixed for judgment. But the trial courts instead of delivering judgment, by the impugned order held that the offence, alleged, was with respect to a dowry death. Therefore, in his opinion, it was essential to frame a charge under Section 304B of the Code.4. Mr. Krish...

Kamdeo Mishra and ors. Vs. Prithabi Jha and ors.

Court: Patna

Gopichand Bharuka, J.1. This appeal has been brought by the plaintiffs against the judgment dated 18-2-76 and the consquential decree dated 22 3-1976 passed by Sub-Judge, Darbhanga, in Title Suit No. 131 of 1971. The suit was filed for setting aside certain deeds of transfer in respect of the properties mentioned in the three schedules of the plaint on the ground that the defendant Kaushalya Ojhain, the vendor under the sale and gift deeds had no title or interest in the schedule properties and it was the plaintiffs, who are rightful owners in respect thereof.2. I may first summarise the foundational facts. One Bhukan Jha had three sons, namely, Ramji Jha, Roop Lal and Sarup Lal. The family was governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The said three brothers separated from each other by affecting a partition by metes and bounds. The name of the wife of Ramji was Sulokhi. He had three issues being two daughters and one son. The daughters were Sarjug Mishram (Plaintiff No. 1) and Sa...

Arun Khanna Vs. State of Bihar and anr.

Court: Patna

S.N. Jha, J.1. This application has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance for offences under Section 498A/406/34, Indian Penal Code and the entire proceeding.2. Cognizance has been taken on the complaint of Nita Khanna. opposite party No. 2. According to her, after marriage with the petitioner on 12-3-1990 solemnized at Amritsar, she was ill-treated by the accused persons, the husband and in-laws, because her father could not satisfy the demand of dowry. At times she was assaulted. As a result of cruelty, torture and harassment meted out to her, she was forced to leave her matrimonial home and live with her parents at Dhanbad. On 12-8-1991 a son was also born but accused persons did not even care to come over and see him. It is said that at the time of marriage, gold ornaments weighing 40 tolas and Rs. 50,000 in cash as well as many personal and house effects were given by her parents for her benefit and use which were entrusted to the accused persons. The complainant w...

Mira Bose and Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

G.C. Bharuka, J.1. These appeals are directed against a common judgment dated 21st August, 1976 passed by the 4th Additional Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarpur in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 110 and 114 of 1968.2. The land in question which has been described in paragraph-2 of the impugned judgment have been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only) for improvement of Muzaffarpur Pipara Kothi section of Latera Road. The areas of the lands are 1.5 bigha and 2.358 acres respectively. The lands are situated in village Kaspakhuti lying in the district of Muzaffarpur. The compensation originally awarded and ultimately affirmed by the court below are Rs.3651.68p. and Rs.6425.41p., respectively. The Collector had awarded compensation by determining the price of the lands at the rate of Rs. 1161- and Rs. 114/- per katha. But according to the land owners-applicants the market value of the lands ought to have been taken at least at Rs...

Mali Ram Agarwal Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

R.N. Sahay, J.1. The petitioner has been prosecuted for an offence under Section 16(1-A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The case is pending before S. D. J. M., Jamshedpur. It is admitted position that sample of turmeric was taken for analysis by the Food Inspector on 4-9-1987. The sanction for prosecution was granted on 30-8-1983 and prosecution report was filed on 27-9-1989. Thus, there is inordinate delay for more than two years in launching the prosecution. This is not all. The prosecution report annexed as Annexure-1 to the petition. The complaint filed by the Food Inspector shows that there is no mention as to how the Haldi was adulterated. The report of the Public Analyst not sent along with the complaint.2. It is mandatory requirement under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 that copy of the report of the Public Analyst shall be forwarded to the accused informing him that if he so, desire he can make application before the Court within ...

Prafull Ranjan and ors. Vs. the Chancellor and ors.

Court: Patna

Reported in: AIR1996Pat13; 1994(42)BLJR670

1. These writ applications involve common questions and have been heard together. They are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In all the writ applications the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 6-8-1993 passed by him on the recommendation of the Examination Board, which resolved by its resolution dated 28-7-1993 that '0' (zero) marks be awarded to all those students who walked out, or stayed out, from the examination held on 15th, 16th, 19th and 20th April, 1993, in accordance with the relevant regulation. The petitioners herein are students of B. A. (Honours) 1989-1992 batch, and by reason of the aforesaid recommendation of the Examination Board and the order of the Vice-Chancellor they have been awarded '0' marks in the papers in which they had stayed away/ walked out of the examination hall. In C.W.J.C. No. 8415 of 1993 the petitioners have also challenged the vires of the Regulations framed under Section 5(2) of...

Nathuni Bhagat and ors. Vs. Ram Bilash Singh and ors.

Court: Patna

G.C. Bharuka, J.1. This first appeal has been preferred by the defendants. It is against judgment and decree dated 11.4.1974 passed by the 1st Additional Sub Judge, Begusarai in Title Suit. 63 of 1968/4 of 1974 by which he has declared the title of the plaintiff to the extent of 8 bighas, 6 kathas and 4 dhurs in the lands described in the Schedule of the plaint.2. I may first notice the facts which has been admitted before me as beyond controversy between the contesting patties. One Jawahar had two sons, namely Hiro and Mochan. Hiro died leaving behind him one married daughter, namely Khakri who was impleaded as defendant No. 7 in the suit. But subsequently because of her death during the pendency of the suit her heirs have been brought on record. The Hindu undivided family comprising of Hiro and Mochan owned and possessed some immoveable properties. The plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 21.4.1968 (Ext. 1) purchased lands measuring 8 bighas, 6 kathas and 4 dhurs being part ...

Amar Nath Thakur Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

G.C. Bharuka, J.1. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the orders as contained in Annexure '1' dated 15-10-1990, Annexure '2' dated 3-8-1991 and Annexure '3' dated 21-11-1991 passed by the Certificate Officer, Darbhauga, appellate authority and the revisional authority respectively. The further prayer of the petitioner is for setting aside the auction sale of his lands measuring about 16 Kathas 3 Dhurs.2. The petitioner had obtained a loan Rs. 1,79,000 from the respondent United Bank of India for purchasing a bus bearing No. BRG 6433 and as a security against the said loan, he mortgaged the said bus. He started plying the bus on 4th March, 1982. Since he had failed to make the repayments within the stipulated time, therefore, Certificate Case No. 1/1985-86 was instituted against him, which is pending before the Certificate Officer, Darbhanga, it appears that the aforesaid bus was seized in connection with the said proceedings. Therefore, the petitio...

Auto Tyre Centre Vs. United Exhibitors

Court: Patna

S.B. Sinha, J.1. This Civil revision application under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 is directed against the judgment dated 12th April, 1990 passed by Sri P.N. Lal Subordinate Judge in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 8/86 whereby and where under the said learned court decreed the plaintiff-opposite party's suit for eviction on the ground of their personal necessity.2. The plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit claiming inter alia the following reliefs:(a) For a decree for eviction from the premises described in schedule of the Plaint be passed in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant.(b) For a decree for damage @ Rs. 100/- per day for the period from 1.4.1986 to the date of decree eviction.(c) For the cost of the suit.(d) For any other or further reliefs.3. In the plaint it was contended that the property in suit which has been described in Schedule-A of the plaint has been purchased by the plaintiff from one Rajesh Kumar by regi...