Patna Court October 2010 Judgments
Md. Sagir Ansari, and anr. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. Five petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 18.7.1998 passed by Shri S.P.Sharma, 5th Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari in Sessions Trial No.66 of 1998 , arising out of Motihari Town P.S. Case No.194 of 1996( T.R.No.552 of 1997). By the said order, the learned 5th Addl.Sessions Judge has rejected the petition for discharge filed on behalf of the aforesaid five petitioners.2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2, who was husband of petitioner no.3 initially filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadar Motihari, East Champaran vide Complaint Case No.952 of 1996. After filing of the complaint petition, the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure referred the complaint to the police for its institution and investigation. Accordingly, an F.I.R. vides Motihari Town P.S. Case No.1...
Tag this Judgment!Subh Narayan Mishra, and anr. Vs. State of Bihar.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. On call, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. However, Sri A.M.P.Mehta, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State is present.2. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash an order dated 6.2.2007 passed by learned F.T.C.II, Siwan in Sessions Trial No.388 of 2006, arising out of Guthani P.S. Case No.18 of 2003. By the said order, learned trial court has rejected the petition filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for their discharge.3. The present case is in relation to offence committed under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. After going through the order of rejection of discharge petition, it appears that while hearing discharge petition, learned F.T.C.II, Siwan had examined the case record and case diary and thereafter he had come to the conclusion that the witnesses have ...
Tag this Judgment!Birendra Kumar Singh. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. On call, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. However, Sri A.M.P.Mehta learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State is present.2. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 28.8.2006 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siwan in Trial No.3522 of 2006 arising out of Siwan Town P.S. Case No.69 of 2005. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 420,467,468,469,470 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.3. On perusal of the record, it appears that on the basis of written report submitted by the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad cum- Circle Officer, Siwan, an F.I.R. vide Siwan Town P.S. Case No.69 of 2005 was registered on 16.3.2005. It was alleged that the petitioner had committed offences under Sections 420,467,468,470 a...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Chauhan. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. Six petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 2.12.2006 passed in Complaint Case No.CA921 of 2006 by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.2. Short fact of the case is that the opposite party no.2, who claimed to be wife of petitioner no.1, filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.CA921 of 2006 for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal code and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that complainant's marriage with petitioner no.1 was solemnized nine years back. After solemnization of the marriage, she continued to live happily with her husband and her in- l...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Kumar. Vs. Sujata Devi.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. Both the above stated miscellaneous appeals have arisen out of common judgment dated 12.8.2004 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Misc. Case No. 9 of 1994 and Misc. Case No. 10 of 1994 by which and whereunder Misc. Case No. 9 of 1994 filed by the respondent- Sujata Devi was allowed and her maintenance allowance was enhanced from Rs 700/- to Rs 1000/- per month from the date of above stated judgment and maintenance allowance granted to the son of the respondent- Sujata Devi was stopped as he had already attained the age of majority whereas Misc. Case No. 10 of 1994 filed by the appellant was dismissed on contest. 2. We have already heard learned counsels for the parties on the points of admission and limitation petition i.e. I.A. No. 725 of 2007 and in our opinion both the above stated miscellaneous appeals and I.A. No. 725 of 2007 may be disposed of at admission stage itself. Since both the above stated miscellaneous appeals have been preferred against the common judg...
Tag this Judgment!Md.Rahmat Ali, and anr. Vs. State of Bihar, and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. The petitioners have challenged the order of the Sub-divisional Officer, Jhanjharpur, contained in Annexure-7 by which lands appertaining to Khata No. 490, Plot No. 1486 (old), R.S. Plot No. 1973, measuing 1 Bigha, 10 Kathas and 9 Dhurs which is a Pokhar, has been transferred to the Fisheries Department for recording it as a Sairat. The said transfer was made on the basis of a report of the Circle Officer.2. The petitioners' case is that 15 Kathas and 4 Dhurs of the lands mentioned aforesaid were settled on 7.8.1943 to the petitioners' father Md. Ali. Rent receipts were granted by the ex-landlord in favour of the petitioners' father. One such receipt has been annexed and marked as Annexure-2/1. It is also stated that on 18.4.1993, the remaining 15 Kathas and 4 Dhurs was also settled in favour of the petitioners' father. It is stated that the petitioners' father submitted return and his name was recorded by the State in Register II. The petitioners claim that they have been granted r...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, and anr. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. The petitioner no.1, who was posted as Registrar of Medicine at Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad and petitioner no.2, at the relevant time, was Medical Practitioner, have approached this Court, while invoking its inherent jursidcition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash an order dated 3.4.2000 passed by Shri B.K. Dixit, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.1736(c) of 1999. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 323, 341, 342, 379, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2, who was Director, JCC Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, Patna filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna vide Complaint Case No.1736(c) of 1999 against both the petitioners for offences under Sections 323, 379, 341, 342 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the complaint petition that the petitioners had booked a flat, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Nath MishrA. Vs. State of Bihar.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. Today again, on call none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. On 25.10.2010 also, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. However, the case was adjourned for the day with an indication that no further adjournment shall be granted. It was noticed that in this case, interim order of stay was continuing since 10.12.2007.2. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 20.2.2007 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in G.O. Case No.39 of 2007. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Section 419,205 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.3. It was alleged by learned Fast Track Court no.III that the petitioner impersonating himself as a witnesse had filed attendance during the trial and he was ready to depose and thereafter it was noticed that he was an...
Tag this Judgment!K.S.Saxena, and anr. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 3.8.1998 passed by Sri Chandrama Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gopalganj in Complaint Case No.840 of 1998, Trial No.819 of 1998. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 419, 471 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code and directed for summoning the petitioners.2. Short facts of the case is that Opp. Party No.2 filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No. 840 of 1998 against two petitioners and one Pashupati Prasad for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 419 & 120B of the Indian Penla Code. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that accused no.1, namely, Pashupati Prasad, who was owner of the truck, bearing registration no.BPF 4651, requested the complainant for transporting the sugarcane to the Vishnu Sugar Mill. The complainant accepted the propo...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram Yadav, and ors. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. Six petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 23.3.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai in Complaint Case No.2216 (C) of 2005. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 323 and 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of order dated 9.1.2007 passed by taught Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Cr. Revision No.159 of 2006, whereby the revision preferred against the order of cognizance was rejected.2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2, who was wife of petitioner no.1 filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai , which was numbered as Complaint Case No.2216C of 2005 against the petitioners on allegation of commission of offences under Sections 149, 323, 307, 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. It was disclosed in the comp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »