Patna Court September 2004 Judgments

Mahesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and anr.

Court: Patna

Reported in: 2004(3)BLJR1952

1. These two cases are directed against the same cognizance order and similar reliefs are prayed for on behalf of the petitioners in both the two cases. These cases were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Heard Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in the two cases and Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, counsel for the complainant-opp. party No. 2 who is the same person in both the cases.3. There is a single petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 28931 of 2003. He is the Managing Director of Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation ('the Corporation', hereinafter). In Cr. Misc. No. 29422 of 2003 there are six petitioners who are officers and staff of the Corporation. The petitioners in the two cases seek to challenge the order, dated 2.8.2003 passed by a Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class at Gaya in Case No. C741/2003/TR 982/2003. By the impugned order the Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 406, 409, 425...

Lala Thakur Vs. the State of Bihar

Court: Patna

R.S. Garg, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The applicant is in jail in connection with Piparahi P.S. Case No. 13 of 2004, dated 26.2.2004 under Sections 395, 397, 412 IPC and 25 (1-B) A, and 26 of the Arms Act.3. It appears from the report dated 26.2.2004 sent by the Officer Incharge, Piparahi Police Station that while committing dacoity in a jewelry shop, the accused persons opened fire and one of the bullets hit the co-accused/present applicant. The public apprehended him on the spot and gave him a good beating. The police after receiving information, brought the accused and thereafter admitted him in the Government hospital, Sheohar. The report also says that right from 26.2.2004, the movements of the accused were restricted by placing a guard of 1+ 4.4. It is not in dispute before me that on 26.2.2004 the accused was lodged in the hospital, his movements were restricted and he was not produced in any court within 24 hours, as required under Section 57 of the Code of ...

Jagjit Singh Arora Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.

Court: Patna

P.K. Sinha, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, for opposite party No. 2, the complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor have been heard.2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying therein to quash order dated 14.2.2001 by which cognizance of offence under Sections 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code had been taken, as well to quash the further prosecution arising out of Complaint Case No. 145(C) of 2001 pending in the Court of Sri S.N. Tiwari, Judicial Magistrate, first class, Patna in so far as it relates to the instant petitioner.3. The allegations in the complaint at Annexure-2, in brief, are as follows :4. Accused No. 1 to 8, petitioner being accused No. 2 said to be the Chairman of Hindustan Financial Management. Limited (H.F.M.L. in short) had invited deposits of money from general public in different schemes promising good return who also persuaded the complainant and his wife to make deposits in the Company. On such ...

Devendra Prasad @ Sidharth Vs. State of Bihar and anr.

Court: Patna

Reported in: I(2005)DMC761

1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code', in short) praying therein for setting aside of quashing the order dated 6.9.2002 recorded by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah in Cr. Rev. No. 3 of 2002/90 of 2000 as well the order dated 17.8.2000 recorded by Shri Bipin Bihari, Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Nawadah in Maintenance Case No. 39 of 1997 corresponding to Trial No. 607 of 2000.2. The facts, in brief, are that before the learned Magistrate the application for maintenance was brought by the opposite party No. 2, Smt. Manju Dayal against her husband, who is petitioner here, namely, Devendra Prasad @ Sidharth under Section 125 of the Code. On hearing the matter, the application was allowed and the husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance. That matter, thereafter went to revision, aforesaid, which was dismissed giving rise to the instant petition.3. In this case, at the time of admission st...

Dheeraj Kumar Verma and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Mridula Mishra, J.1. Petitioners are the legal heirs of late Hare Krishna Lal, who was accountant in Saharsa Municipality and died in harness on 1.3.1999. This application has been filed by the petitioners for a direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to make payment of retiral dues of their late father relating to earned leave, gratuity, provident fund, arrears of bonus and increment. Further prayer, is for a direction to respondent No. 4, Life Insurance Corporation of India, to make payment of group insurance with interest.2. Petitioner No. 2 son of Hare Krishna Lal was appointed on compassionate ground in Saharsa Municipality after the death of his father. He made the grievances for payment of death-cum- retiral dues of his father. No action was taken by the special officer, Saharsa Municipality. As such, he approached the respondent No. 2, the District Magistrate, Saharsa , for payment of retiral dues and in turn the District Magistrate, Saharsa, by his letter dated 24.8.2000 directe...

Dheeraj Kumar Verma and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Mridula Mishra, J.1. Petitioners are th\loisdataSpellCorrectionSupreme Court1962After Spl.Exe Run1962e legal heirs of late Hare Krishna Lal, who was accountant in Saharsa Municipality and died in harness on 1.3.1999. This application has been filed by the petitioners for a direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to make payment of retiral dues of their late father relating to earned leave, gratuity, provident fund, arrears of bonus and increment. Further prayer is for a direction to Life Insurance Corporation of India, respondent No. 4, to make payment of group insurance with interest.2. Petitioner No. 2, son of Hare Krishna Lal had been appointed on compassionate ground in Saharsa Municipality after the death of his father. He made the grievances for the payment of death-cum-retiral dues of his father. No action was taken by the Special Officer, Saharsa Municipality. As such, he approached the District Magistrate, Saharsa, respondent No. 2, for the payment of retrial dues and in turn th...

Uma Sharan Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Mridula Mishra, J.1. This application has been filled by the petitioner for a direction to the respondent to make payment of all retiral dues like pension, gratuity, leave encashment, group insurance and GPF amount with statutory as well as penal interest and also for commutation of 40% pension without appearing before the medical board.2. The petitioner superannuated from service as Assistant Engineer on 31.1.1998 from Building Division, Deoghar, under the Building Construction Department, Bihar. While in service he was granted first time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1981, second time bound promotion with effect from 25.5.1989, senior selection grade with effect from 1.3.1989, super time scale of Junior Engineer with effect from 26.3.1994 and super time scale with effect from 1.4.1990. He was promoted as Assistant Engineer in Bihar Engineering Service Class-II with effect from 18.7.1995 but subsequently on the direction of the High Court in a writ application his date of prom...

Veena Kumari Vs. Srikant @ Sanjay

Court: Patna

S.N. Hussain, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is defendant in divorce case No. 27/96 which has been filed by the opposite party for dissolution of their marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity).3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 1.6.2002 passed in the aforesaid case by which the learned First Additional District Judge, Begusarai, had rejected her petition under Section 24 of the Act for maintenance pendentilite @ Rs. 4,000/- per month from the date of filing of the case.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed on the assumption that since the petitioner is already getting Rs. 300/-per month, there was no occasion for review of the said order. He contended that the said amount of Rs. 300/- per month was not being given as maintenance but was being given as cost of litigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner fu...

Ram Prakash Thakur Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

R.S. Garg, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent No. 9.2. It appears that election case No. 9 of 2001 was tiled by one Ram Narain Yadav, who is respondent No. 9 in the matter and election case No. 10 of 2001 has been filed by respondent No. 7, Devendra Yadav. The respondent No. 7, Devendra Yadav, made an application in election matter that he be allowed to withdraw the election petition. The application was opposed by respondent No. 9, submitting inter alia that looking to the nature of the allegation the election petitioner could not be allowed to be withdrawn. He, however, also made an application that he be allowed to be transposed from his capacity, as a defendant to the arrary of the election petition. The learned Court below after hearing the parties and taking into consideration that election of the present writ petitioner has also been impugned in election case No. 10 of 2001, rejected the applicatio...

Devender Yadav Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the judgment dated 14th of February 2003 passed by the Munsif, 2nd Gaya in election petition No. 3 of 2001 (Annexure-1) whereby it had set aside the election of the petitioner as Mukhiya of Dehuri Gram Panchayat. By the impugned judgment, the learned Munsif has further directed the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer, Gaya for holding a fresh election.2. Shorn of unnecessary details facts giving rise to the present application are that petitioner Devendra Yadav, hereinafter referred to as the returned candidate, as also respondent No. 5 Md. Anwar Hussain, hereinafter referred to as the election petitioner, were candidates for election to the post of Mukhiya of Dehuri Gram Panchayat in the district of Gaya. In the said election Devendra Yadav was declared elected. The election petitioner challenged his election by filing an election petition under ...