Patna Court October 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Vijoy Kumar VermA. Vs. State of Bihar.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1. All the four applications arise out of one order of the court below dated 31.01.2005 and involved common question of law and fact. So they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.2. All the six applicants have filed these four applications seeking quashing of entire proceeding before court below besides the order dated 31.01.2005 passed by learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 202 of 2003 arising out of Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 40/2004 through which they have been summoned as additional accused under section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the prayer of Additional Public Prosecutor dated 12.10.2004.3. The relevant facts of this case is that on the statement of one Poonam Kumar Mishra now deceased in Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 40/2002 was instituted against one Asmith Disuza and his few unknown associates (not named) alleging that eldest daughter of the informant Swarnima Payal aged 16 years, an examinee of 10+2 while being...
Bal Krishna Das, and ors. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1. On call, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. 2. On perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 27.8.2010 also, none had appeared on behalf of the petitioners on call of the case. The case was adjourned for the day with an indication that no further adjournment shall be granted. While adjourning, it was noticed that in this case, interim order was continuing since 17.5.2004. On 31.8.2010, the case was adjourned for four weeks on the prayer of petitioners for filing supplementary affidavit. The record shows that no supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioners nor any one has appeared today on behalf of the petitioners. It is a case for offences under Sections 323, 376/511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. I have perused the impugned order of cognizance dated 11.6.2002 as well as material available on record. I do not find any defect in the order of cognizance nor I find any material for exercis...
Mritunjay Prasad. Vs. Union of IndiA.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for neither adjournment nor any one appears on behalf of opposite party.2. In this case, on 13.5.2010, Lower Court Record was called for. In the meanwhile, it was directed that the petitioner will file affidavit indicating therein as to whether after order of cognizance, he had appeared before the concerned court or not. He was also directed to indicate regarding the stage of the case. Neither learned counsel for the petitioner has filed any affidavit in compliance with order dated 13.5.2010 nor he has appeared on call of the case.3. In this case, the sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of entire proceeding in relation to Complaint Case No.87 of 1987 pending in the court of Special Judge (Economic Office), Patna. In paragraph-2 of the petition, it was mentioned as follows:"2. That the...
Renu Verma, and anr. Vs. State of Bihar.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1. All the four applications arise out of one order of the court below dated 31.01.2005 and involved common question of law and fact. So they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.2. All the six applicants have filed these four applications seeking quashing of entire proceeding before court below besides the order dated 31.01.2005 passed by learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 202 of 2003 arising out of Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 40/2004 through which they have been summoned as additional accused under section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the prayer of Additional Public Prosecutor dated 12.10.2004.3. The relevant facts of this case is that on the statement of one Poonam Kumar Mishra now deceased in Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 40/2002 was instituted against one Asmith Disuza and his few unknown associates (not named) alleging that eldest daughter of the informant Swarnima Payal aged 16 years, an examinee of 10+2 while being...
Seikh Ibrahim. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1. On call, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. However, Sri Md. Musowir, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 is present.2. In this case on earlier occasion, i.e. 31.08.2010 on the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, the case was adjourned for four weeks to enable learned counsel for the petitioner to bring on record a copy of the complaint petition of Complaint Case No.1396 of 2000 by filing supplementary affidavit. From the record, it appears that the petitioner has not complied with earlier order. Meaning thereby that no supplementary affidavit has been filed till today, although the time granted earlier has already expired.3. I have perused the materials available on record. 4. 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 18.10.2001 passed by Sri Vijay Bahadur Yadav,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›