Patna Court July 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.
Dudh Nath Singh. Vs. the State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-05-2010
1. Rakesh Kumar, J. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 9th July, 1999 passed by Sri R.L.Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Arrah in Complaint Case No.1020(C) of 1998/ Tr.No.548 of 1999. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken of cognizance of offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Short fact of the case is that the complainant in his complaint petition alleged that this petitioner cheated the complainant and he got signature of the complainant on stamp paper as well on persuasion of this petitioner the complainant went to the Registry Office and he signed over the paper. It was alleged that this petitioner had falsely told the complainant that he will take step for getting loan for construction of a house under the scheme of "Indira Awas"in favour of the complainant. It was alleged that subsequently the complainant came to ...
Mahanth Ghanshyam Das, and anr. Vs. the State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-05-2010
1. Rakesh Kumar, J. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 19.1.2000 passed by Sri K.S. Singh 'Sengar', Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rosera in C.R. No.705 of 1998. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 323,406,465, 417 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of summons to the petitioners.2. Short facts of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 filed a complaint, vide Complaint case No.705 of 1998 alleging therein that petitioner no.1 was the Secretary and petitioner no.2 was the Chairman of Mithila Dugdh Utpadak Sahyog Samiti, Mahathi and in such capacity they had committed several misconduct and misappropriation of fund of the society and also the petitioners by committing fraud had obtained signature of several members of the Society and by committing fraud they got themselves selected again as ...
Anita Devi. Vs. Pradyuman Prasad Yadav.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-05-2010
1. The wife Anita Devi has filed this First Appeal against the Judgment dated Sahoo, J. 08.09.2003 and the decree following there upon signed on 22.09.2003 by Sri Suresh Chandra Pandey, the learned Addl. District Judge-7th Munger in Title Suit (Matrimonial Case) No.28 of 1991/ 8 of 1997 whereby the learned Court below decreed the plaintiff-respondents suit for divorce.2. The husband-respondent filed the aforesaid divorce suit, initially for declaration that the marriage of the petitioner with Anita Devi is a nullity being in contravention of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was alleged that in the year 1975 when the husband-respondent had not attained majority he was forced to marry with the appellant. Subsequently, amendment was made in the plaint and prayer was made that the marriage be dissolved by decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. It is alleged that there is no consummation of marriage and the appellant did not come to his house as his wife because she was also a m...
Ram Jatan SharmA. Vs. the State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-05-2010
1. Rakesh Kumar,J. Nine petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of entire criminal prosecution initiated against them on the basis of Complaint Case No.663(c) of 1999/Tr. No.971 of 1999 and for quashing of the order dated 5.1.2000 passed by Shri G.P. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Danapur. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 471, 429, 427 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint petition vide Complaint Case No.663(c) of 1999 disclosing therein that the petitioners had sprinkled poison on the grass around their house with a view that cattle of the villagers may die after consuming the same. It was further alleged that the petitioners, by way of fabricated document, had un- authorizedly occupied possession over the land appertaining to khata no.79, plot ...
Saryug Sharma, and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar, and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-01-2010
1. Kumar petitioners. No one appears on behalf of the State. Singh, J.J.No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has been served with a copy of the counter affidavit on 13.5.1993. We therefore requested him to place the same before us for perusal. We have gone through the counter affidavit of the respondents and shall make appropriate reference to the pleadings therein after we notice the facts of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the challenge in the writ application was to the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, published on 16.9.1992, notifying the lands of the petitioners, for a public purpose. It is their case that prior to the declaration, the petitioners had no knowledge or notice about the acquisition proceedings. No copy of the statutory notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued much less served upon the petitioners and therefor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›