Patna Court November 2006 Judgments

Hriday Ranjan Prasad and ors. Vs. Sarayug Mahato and ors.

Court: Patna

Reported in: AIR2007Pat88

1. Defendant 4th Set-petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 18-5-2005 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Bettiah in Partition Suit No. 84 of 1994, allowing the application filed by the defendants 4 to 6 Opposite Party Nos. 10 to 12 herein for recall of the order directing the case to proceed against them ex parte, have preferred this application.2. Short facts, giving rise to the present application are that when defendant Nos. 10 to 12 despite service of notice did not appear, the trial Court by order dated 20-2-1998, directed the suit to proceed ex parte against them. Thereafter, the plaintiffs evidence began on 28-7-1998 and 12 of their witnesses were examined up to 14-2-2000. The evidence of defendants 4th set started on 14-3-2000 and 24 witnesses were examined on their behalf till 30th of April, 2001. Argument in the case started on 17-2-2003 and after argument on several dates 6-8-2003 was fixed as the last date for argument but it did not fructify.3. On 18-8-2003, defendants 4 ...

Maral Fashions (a Division of Maral Overseas Ltd.) Vs. State of Bihar ...

Court: Patna

Ghanshyam Prasad, J.1. The petitioner, which is a registered company has filed this application under Section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order of cognizance dated 23-8-2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1050(C) of 2005 thereby and thereunder the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and others.2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order mainly on two grounds. It is submitted that the facts set out in the complaint petition do not disclose necessary ingredients of the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. The other submission is that the opposite party No. 2/complainant has actually filed this complaint case with a view to wreaking vengeance and to spite him due to personal grudge as the petitioner had already filed a case against him for committing fraud, cheating etc.3. The facts which are required to be set out here a...

Naresh Rai Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Ramesh Kr. Datta, J.1. Heard Mr. Sidheshwari Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 and learned standing Counsel-I (Cel1ing ), for the State in both the cases.2. Since both the writ petitions arise from common order they have been taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.3. The petitioner who is common in both the cases seeks quashing, of the common order dated 16.11.2004 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue in Board Revision Case Nos. 146/2004 and 147/2004 which had been filed by respondent No. 5, Rajesh Kumar in the first case and respondent No. 5, Mukesh Kumar Rai in the other case, the respective purchasers under the two separate sale deeds with respect to the lands for which the petitioner had filed two separate pre-emption applications on the basis of which Ceiling Case Nos. 9/2002-03 and 10/2002-03 were respectively registered. Both the cases ...

Rakesh Agarwal and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.

Court: Patna

Ghanshyam Prasad, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioners have filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 27.1.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif, Nalanda in Complaint Case No. 1271(C) of 2005, Trial No. 1774 of 2006 thereby and thereunder the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners under various sections of the I.P.C.3. The relevant facts of this case is that the petitioners are associated with Non Banking Financial Institution name and styled as Zenith Credit Limited, Kolkota. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 entered into a hire purchase agreement with the aforesaid company for purchase of a truck bearing No. WB-37A-3925. The hire purchase amount was to be returned to the company in 34 instalments. The opposite party No. 2 paid some instalments. However, later on he defaulted in payment of the instalments.4. According to the prosecution story on 18.1.2005 the truck met with accident and became un-ply...

Smt. Madhuri Devi and ors. Vs. Bihar State Housing Board and ors.

Court: Patna

Barin Ghosh, J.1. Heard both the parties. 2. An advertisement was published by the respondent Board intimating the public that it has acquired a large chunk of land which upon being developed would be allotted amongst others to the members of the public belonging to middle income group. The advertisement invited applications from persons belonging to middle income group for allotment of developed land so acquired. Petitioners belonged to middle income group. They applied for being alloted such a plot of land. By an allotment- letter, the respondent Board alloted Plot No. V684 to the writ petitioners on certain terms and conditions. Petitioners complied with those terms and conditions by making payment of the earnest money, as indicated in the allotment letter and also by entering into a hire purchase agreement. Petitioners also paid all the instalments, as were mentioned in the hire purchase agreement, though may not be on the due dates, but with interest, as was provided for in the ...

Nageshwar Prasad Gupta Vs. the State of Bihar

Court: Patna

Abhijit Sinha, J. 1. Heard Shri N.K. Agrawal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner as also Shri Jhakhandi Upadhaya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.2. The petitioner who has been made to figure as an accused in Katihar (M) P.S. Case No. 25/2004 (G.R. No. 73/2004) is aggrieved by the order dated 24.06.2004 passed by Shri P.K. Choubey, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in the aforesaid case whereby he has taken cognizance for offences under Section 409, 420 and 120B of the I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Accordingly, the instant application for quashing of the said order.3. The prosecution case is founded on the written report submitted by the Supply Inspector, Katihar, who inter alia stated therein that at about 16.20 hours on 14.01.2004 he raided the business premises of the petitioner and recovered in all 620 bags of wheat and 40 empty bags out of which 220 bags of wheat, each weighing 50 kgs, were found loaded on...

Daroga Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.

Court: Patna

Ghanshyam Prasad, J.1. Heard.2. Both the above applications filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.3. Cr.Misc. No. 15166 of 2005 has been filed to quash the order dated 12.1.2005 passed in Forest Case No. 222 of 2000 alongwith entire criminal proceeding. The other Cr.Misc. has also been filed to quash the order dated 12.1.2005 passed in Forest P.S. Case No. 181 of 2000 alongwith the entire proceeding. Both the orders have been passed by the learned C.J.M., Sasaram through which cognizance have been taken against the petitioners under various provisions of Forest Act.4. In both the cases, the petitioners have been prosecuted on the basis of reports dated 18.4.1993/4.9.1992 submitted by Conservator of Forest before D.F.O., Sasaram. However, the D.F.O. submitted prosecution reports in both the cases after lapse of more than 7/8 years of the alleged date of the occurrence or submission of the reports by Conservator of Fores...

Chhote Shukla @ Vijay Kumar Shukla Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Ghanshyam Prasad, J.1. Heard.2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.c. has been filed to quash the order dated 6.7.2002 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dagaha in Bounded Labour Case No. 52 of 2002 thereby and thereunder cognizance under Section 4(1)(2) of the Bounded Labour System(Abolition),1976 has been taken against the petitioner.3. Several grounds have been taken in the application against the Impugned order. However, in course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly assailed the impugned order on the ground that under Section 21 of the aforesaid Act the Executive Magistrate, expressly conferred with the power of Judicial Magistrate shall conduct trial of offences falling under the Act and not to take cognizance also. The general provisions of Chapter-XIV of Cr.P.C. shall be applicable for initiation of criminal case under the aforesaid Act also. In this respect, the learned Counsel for the petitioner also refers to Section 4(2) of the Cr.P.C.4. I have...

Prabind Kumar Vs. the State of Bihar

Court: Patna

Ghanshyam Prasad, J.1. This application for revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the order dated 5.1.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Danapur in Bikram P.S. Case No. 70 of 2001 thereby and thereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate has ordered for release of truck bearing No. BR-25G/8681 in favour of opposite party No. 2 Amrendra Kumar after rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for the same.2. In course of hearing, a preliminary objection was raised as to maintainability of this revision application as the petitioner has directly approached this Court ignoring the forum of Sessions court which was available to him to challenge the order in question. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the matter of revision jurisdiction of High Court and Sessions Court is concurrent under Section 397 Cr.P.C. of 1973 and, therefore, it is the sole discretion of the aggrieved party to choose one of the forum as per his...

Rajendra Singh and anr. Vs. Smt. Draupadi Devi and ors.

Court: Patna

Barin Ghosh and Madhavendra Saran, JJ.1. A partition suit was filed by the son and the daughter against the step Mother and step sisters as well as the grand father. During the pendency of the suit, the grand father died. It is the grand father, who is alleged to have sold a part of the joint family property and gifted another part of it. It is being contended that the part which was gifted formed part of Schedule I properties, which admittedly was joint family properties, and accordingly that gift could not be interfered with.2. In the plaint, it was contended that the Schedule II properties though stand in the name of the step mother but those properties are joint family properties inasmuch as those properties were purchased from the funds of the joint family and that the same were purchased in the name of the step mother to save those properties from the ceiling proceedings.3. Contentions, as were raised by the plaintiffs, were accepted in toto by the learned trial Judge, but the l...