Patna Court May 2006 Judgments
Purnima Prasad and ors. Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-23-2006
Sudhir Kumar Katriar, J.1. This writ petition has been preferred for a direction to the respondent Oriental Insurance Company Limited to renew the mediclaim policy of Anjani Kishore Prasad deceased (hereinafter referred to as the 'Insured') with effect from 4.12.2004 till the date of his death on 5.5.2006.2. The arguments in the writ petition had concluded on 19.4.2006 and the judgment had been reserved for consideration. Shortly before the judgment could be pronounced, the insured died on 5.5.2006, whose heirs have been brought on record by order dated 19.05.2006. Petitioner No. 1 is the widow of the insured, and petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are that r daughters.3. According to the writ petition, the insured had obtained a mediclaim policy covering the period 4.12.1996 to 3.12.1997, Photo copies of the money receipt dated 4.12.1996, showing payment of the premium amount, and that of the policy described as 'Hospitalisation and Domiciliary Hospitalisation Benefit Policy', are marked Annexur...
Tag this Judgment!Anirudh Prasad @ Sadhu Yadav Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-22-2006
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.1. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in Special Case No. 11 of 2005 arising out of Vigilance P.S.Case No. 08 of 2005 registered under Section 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 477A, 109, 209 and /120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and prays for grant of anticipatory bail.2. Petitioner earlier came to this Court for grant of anticipatory bail which was registered as Cr.Misc.No. 10949 of 2006 (Anirudh Prasad @ Anidh Prasad @ Amirudi Prasad @ Sadhu Yadav v. The State of Bihar). While acceding to prayer of the petitioner by order dated 9.3.2006, this Court directed that the said order shall not enure to his benefit after the submission of the charge sheet.3. The Charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner in this case.4. Petitioner, thereafter, filed application for grant of anticipatory bail bearing Bail Application No. 1152 of 2006 before the Delhi High Court. When the matter was ta...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and anr ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-19-2006
Ghanshyam Prasad, J.1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceeding pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Gaya as well as order of cognizance dated 20.4.2001 passed in Complaint Case No. 56 of 2001, Trial No. 541 of 2002.2. Heard.3. The opposite party No. 2 Rinko Devi was the legally married wife of petitioner Santosh Prasad. The marriage was solemnised on 30.6.1996 and thereafter. The opposite party No. 2 came to the house of petitioner No. 1. Even before mehdi faded its colour the differences began to surface and ultimately after eight days of stay the opposite party No. 2 returned to her Naihar. After few months she again came to her Sasural and a child was born out of the wedlock. However, the, differences continued to persist.4. It appears that later on both the parties entered into series of litigation including the present one, which is under challenge.5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the criminal proceed...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-19-2006
Rekha Kumari, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 30.6.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 955 (C) of 2004 by which he has directed to issue summons against the petitioner for facing trial for the offence under Sections 426, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Heard both the sides.3. O.P.No. 2, Bhagwan Singh, filed a complaint on 23.4.2004 in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna against the petitioner Arun Kumar Singh, Chief Executive Officer, Patna, Municipal Corporation, alleging there in that He was an Assistant in Patna Municipal Corporation and retired on 1.11.1997. He was, however, not paid the retiral benefits by the then chief Executive Officer. Ultimately he had to file a writ application (C.W.J.C.No. 3505/2000) in the High Court. On 15.1.2004 the writ petition was allowed. On that very date in the court...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Kumar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors. and Union of In ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-19-2006
R.N. Prasad, Barin Ghosh, and S.N. Hussain JJ.1. In these writ petitions, we are concerned with the validity of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2006 Act'). The 2006 Act was preceded by Panchayati Raj Ordinance, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'). These writ petitions were filed challenging the validity of the Ordinance. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the 2006 Act came into force and accordingly, applications have been filed to amend the writ petitions in order to enable the petitioners to challenge also the 2006 Act. The provisions of the Ordinance and the provisions of the 2006 Act are identical, except that the Ordinance repealed the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and saved the things done thereunder, whereas the 2006 Act repealed the Ordinance and saved the things done thereunder.2. Before we proceed to deal with contentions of the petitioners, it would be useful to refer to certain background facts in order to appreciate the...
Tag this Judgment!Shekh Darud, Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-19-2006
Chandra Mohan Prasad, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.6.1992 of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran (Bettiah) whereby each of the three appellants has been convicted under Sections 307 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and respectively sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and three years. Each of the three appellants has also been sentenced under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code of monetary fine of Rs. 3000/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for six months.2. It may be mentioned here that originally there were five accused persons including Shekh Alamgir and Shekh Bhikhari in the case and they were also tried and convicted under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to execute bonds for two years under Section 360 Cr.P.C. for maintaining peace and being of good behaviour during the period. These two accused namely Shekh Alamgir and Shekh Bhikhari did not file any appeal against the conviction a...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Ratan Mahto Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-18-2006
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.1. On the basis of a report given by the Circle Officer, Majhouli, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bettiah passed conditional order requiring the 2nd party to remove obstruction from a public road. The 2nd party, objected to it and denied the existence of any such road or obstruction. After giving opportunity of hearing to both the party, the learned Magistrate, by order dated 23.6.2003 passed in Case No. 1055-M/2002, directed the 2nd party to remove the obstruction within fifteen days, failing which it was directed that the obstruction shall be removed forcefully. The 2nd party, aggrieved by the same, preferred Cr.Revision No. 160 of 2003, and the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah, by order dated 31st of January, 2004, allowed the revision application and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate.2. The Ist party, aggrieved by the same, has preferred this application.3. The Ist party, petitioner herein, filed a petition in the court ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kishore Singh and Braj Kishore Prasad Sandilya Vs. the State of Bi ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-18-2006
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.1. In both the applications, common questions of law with little variation on facts arise and as such, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Prayer of the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 26515 of 2005 is to quash the order dated 15.9.1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in Aurangabad Mufassil P.S. Case No. 341 of 1995 (G.R.No. 1673 of 1995 whereby it had taken cognizance of the offence under Section 406 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of process against the petitioner. In Cr. Misc. No. 32048 of 2005, prayer of the petitioner is to quash the first information report bearing Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 255 of 2004 registered under Section 406, 409, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Allegations against the petitioners in both the cases are that they had taken loan from the Bihar State Financial Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation, hypothecated the articles a...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Rafique Ahmad Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-18-2006
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.1. Whether an order taking cognizance and issuance of process is an interlocutory order and therefore not revisable under the revisional jurisdiction is a vexed question of law which on several occasions had been the subject matter of adjudication and the present one is one such occasion. As answer to this question has far reaching consequence, I prefer to analyse the same in little detail.2. Aforesaid question arises on a simple background, i.e. the complainant filed a petition of complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, inter alia, alleging commission of offence under Section 420, 461, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate examined the complainant on solemn affirmation and after an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as 'the Code', by order dated 12.12.2005 passed in Complaint Case No. 798 (C) of 2004, being prima facie satisfied that offence under Section 420, 468 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Chandra Ram Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-18-2006
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.1. Sole appellant, being aggrieved by the judgement of conviction and sentence dated 16th of January, 1988 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 67 of 1986 holding him guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, has preferred this appeal.2. Prosecution story, according to the first information report (Ext. 3) given by P.W.4 Ganesh Ram before the Officer Incharge of Bhagwanpur Police Station is that on 28.5.1985, while he was at his residence, he came to know that milk had not come from his bathan as usual till 6 A.M, he went to his bathan to make enquiry in this regard. At the bathan, according to the informant, his brother was not found and on enquiry from the servant Rajdeo, he came to know that he has gone to plough the banana-field and on this information, he proceeded towards the said field and when reached near its north-west corner, he saw h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »