Patna Court November 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.
Baidehi Devi, and anr. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
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 13.2.2007 passed in Complaint Case No.534 (C) of 2006 by learned Sub Divisio9nal Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria. By the said order learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is peculiar case, in which petitioner no.1 was firstly kidnapped by the complainant, i.e. Opp.Party no.2 and forcibly got married with his daughter, namely, Anila Devi. 2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.534(C) of 2006 against both the petitioners and other eleven persons on an accusation of committing offences under Sections 420,406, 498A, 120B, 494 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It wa...
Chandra Kala MishrA. Vs. State of Bihar, and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondent-authorities in a land ceiling (surplus) case instituted and concluded against respondent No.5, Kamla Prasad Mishra, under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms ( Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Land Ceiling Act"), whereby the land holder(respondent no.5) has been held to be entitled to be allotted to only one ceiling unit and, accordingly, he has been allowed to retain 30 acres of class-IV lands, and the remaining 42.69 acres of lands including the lands claimed by the present petitioner have been declared surplus.2. No one appeared on behalf of the writ petitioner to press this writ petition. However, we have heard learned Standing Counsel No.2 (ceiling) appearing for the official respondents, as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of intervenors respondents No. 7 to 11 and have perused the materials available on record. The writ petition was a...
Basudeo Mahto. Vs. State of Bihar.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
1. 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 1.5.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 302,120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code in Hilsa P.S. Case No.58 of 1999 on the basis of supplementary chargesheet submitted by the police.2. Short fact of the case is that the petitioner was made one of the accused along with three other accused persons in Hilsa P.S. Case No.58 of 1999 on an allegation of murdering younger brother of the informant. Since in the present case, the question, which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that after submission of chargesheet and exoneration of the petitioner by the Officer Incharge without collecting any material further chargesheet is not permissible, the order of cognizance is bad, it is not necessary to give detail of the alle...
Sanjay Kumar, and ors. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
1. Four 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 29.7.2004 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in Complaint Case No.616 of 2004. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 wife of petitioner no.1, filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.616 of 2004 against the petitioners for commission of offences under Sections 323, 324, 307,379, 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that the complainant was married to petitioner no.1 in the year 1979. At the time of marriage, petitioner no.1 was unemployed and adequate dowry was given to the accuse...
Kailash Singh, and anr. Vs. State of Bihar.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. Today again, on call, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. Shri Mahesh Prasad No.2, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 is present. 2. In absence of learned counsel for the petitioners, I have heard Shri Mahesh Prasad No.2, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as Shri A.M.P. Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. 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 4.6.2007 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.I, Hajipur in Sessions Trial No.298 of 2006 arising out of Goraul P.S. Case No.33 of 2005. By the said order, learned trial Judge, by assigning a detailed reason, has rejected the petition for discharge filed on behalf of the petitioners. 4. I have perused the impugned order. I do not find any defect in the order....
Mishri Lall Rai. Vs. Chandeshwar Rai, and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. This first appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.8.2000 and the decree following thereupon signed on 14.9.2000 by Sri A.K. Sinha, the learned 4th Subordinate Judge, Chapra in Partition Suit No. 187 of 1995 dismissing the appellant's suit for partition.2. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit claiming 1/6th share in schedule 1 and schedule 2 property. According, the plaintiff, Khedan Ram and Bhardual Rai were brothers. Khedan Rai had three sons Rajwanshi, Sukan and Chaitu. Bhardual Rai had a son Jaleshwari Rai. In the recent survey, the suit properties were recorded in the name of Rajwanshi, Sukan and Chaitu. Chaitu died issueless after R.S. in jointness with his brothers. Rajwanshi has three sons namely, Sagar, Dhyan and Sita. Out of them Sita died issueless. Sagar had a son Agam who in term has five sons who are defendant Nos. 1 to 5. Sukan Rai had four sons namely Raghunandan, Bheekham, Ram Ratan and Ram Prasad. Plaintiff is the son of Raghunandan. The four sons of Ram...
Lloyds Finance Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.2. Supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 and supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners on 02.11.2010 after serving copy of the respective counsels.3. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the order dated 29.11.1999 passed by Shri Bibhakar Dubey, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 1205(C) of 1999 for offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.4. Admittedly, petitioner is a non- banking company with whom different schemes in which investors made their investment and opposite party no.2 also got a sum of Rs. 12,000/- deposited on 18.11.1996 and interest was being paid from month to month at prescribed rate. One of the cheque worth Rs. 540/- bounced ...
Lioyds Finance Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of order dated 01.04.2005 passed by Shri Satyendra Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 3029(C)/2004 taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 403 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Admittedly, the petitioner is a non- banking finance company with whom complainant opposite party no.2 got a sum of Rs. 15,000/- deposited in two separate deposits on 15.07.1997 but when the maturity amount of Rs. 30,000/- could not be paid on 15.04.2001, the instant case was filed wherein cognizance was taken.4. It is admitted that petitioner's company already paid the principal amount to opposite party no.2 and also paid the amount for which the cheque was bounced. Only question of due interest till it is actual payment now remains in controversy.5. During the course of argu...
Md.Khurshid Alam. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of order dated 16.05.2006 passed by Shri R.K. Choudhary Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, samastipur, taking cognizance in complaint case no. 1596(C) of 2004 on the basis for the offence under Sections 420, 464, 465, 468 of the Indian Penal Code in pursuance of order dated 28.02.2006 in Criminal Revision No. 461 of 2005.3. The relevant facts of this case is that opposite party no.2 filed the complaint petition against 7 persons including the petitioner and his wife stating therein that during continuation of partition suit between his wife and mother-in-law at one hand and other co-sharers at other hand. The complainant could come to know that right from 1991, some transaction were done with respect to the properties in question by wife of petitioner in...
The State of Bihar, and anr. Vs. Ram Pratap Singh, and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
(1) This First Appeal has been filed by the State of Bihar against the judgment and decree dated 9.9.1993 passed by Sri S.S.P. Verma, the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge, Bagaha, West Champaran in Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 1992.(2) It appears that for construction of power house in village Pipra, total 51.69 acre lands were acquired by the State of Bihar under the scheme as Hydel Electrical Eastern Canal Project, Valmikinagar. Out of that total land, 15 acre 44 decimal lands of the claimant-respondent was acquired. Notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act was published on 22.08.1984. The claimants filed application under Section 9. After hearing, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.10,189.08/- including the value of the land measuring 15 acre 44 decimals.(3) The land holders-respondents filed application u/s 18 of the L.A. Act claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000 per acre alleging that the lands acquired are irrigated land and three crops a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »