Court : Patna
1. The sole petitioner, who was at the relevant time Secretary of the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, has approached this Court, while invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash an order dated 24.07.1997 passed by Sri U.S. Dwedi , Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua in Complaint Case No.80 of 1997, Tr.No.451 of 1997 . By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 165A, 166 and 167 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2, who was by profession as Advocate and practicing at Bhabhua, filed a complaint in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua on an allegation that in the Matriculation Certificates of his two sons, date of birth was incorrectly mentioned. Subsequently, on the petition filed by Opp.Party no.2, the Headmaster of the concerned School had requested the Bihar School Examination Board to make necessary correct. Even tho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.2. The two petitioners have preferred this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the order dated 04.02.2005 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. III, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 510 of 1996 arising out of Sarai P.S. Case No. 72 of 1995 summoning them in exercise of powers conferred under section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code for an offence under section 366A of the Indian Penal Code.3. It was first contended by learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance upon the decision of Apex Court in a Case Sohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan reported in A.I.R. 1990 SC 2158 and decision of this court in a case of Uma Shankar Sahay v. State of Bihar and another reported in 1998(2) BLJ 783; that since the two petitioners were made accused at the instance of informant in his compl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
(1) The original plaintiff, B.B. Rashda Khatoon had filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.1995 passed by Sri Paras Nath, the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Muzaffarpur in Title Appeal No. 42 of 1975 affirming the judgment and decree dated 11.06.1975 passed by Sri Shyama Prasad Singh, the learned Munsif, East Court, Muzaffarpur in Title Suit No. 31 of 1969. (2) During the pendency of the second appeal, the original plaintiff, B.B.Rashda Khatoon died and in her place, the legal representatives have been substituted.(3) The plaintiff-appellant filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of title with regard to suit property, detailed in Schedule 1 of the Plaint and further prayed for a direction to the defendant no. 1 to hand over registration receipt of the Registered Deed dated 22.11.1967, executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of the plaintiff and also prayed for a decree for redemption of Bharna Bond dated 15.04.1947. Prayer has also been made to giv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. The original applicant Kamla Pd. Singh had filed this fist appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.1978 passed by Sri Arun Chandra Das, learned 1st Subordinate Judge-cum-Land Acquisition Judge, Muzaffarpur in Land Acquisition Case No.136 of 1966. During the pendency of the appeal Kamla Pd. Singh the sole applicant died and in his place the present appellants have been substituted.2. It may be mentioned here that lands of one Jagarnath Prasad Singh and the lands of the deceased Kamla Pd. Singh was acquired by the State of Bihar for construction of Manikpur Branch Canal of Gandak Project in the year 1965-66 in Land Acquisition Case No. 24 P-Muzaffarpur of 1965-66. Two awards were prepared separately in the name of Jagannath Singh and Kamla Pd. Singh being award No. 4 and award No.2. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded total sum of Rs. 19,278.31 paise for the land of Kamla Pd. Singh the original applicant. It may be mentioned tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Petitioner no.1, who is wife of complainant, has approached this Court along with her father, mother, brothers and wives of her brother, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash an order dated 26.09.2002 passed by Sri L. Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ara in Complaint Case No.783(C) of 2002, Trial No.1102 of 2002. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 323,341,379 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 filed a complaint on 10.7.2002 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ara, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 783 C of 2002. In the complaint petition, the complainant disclosed that petitioner no.1, who was wife of complainant, right from the date of marriage, i.e. 6th June, 1995 was not behaving properly either with the complainant or with his family members. It was alleged that from time to time...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of entire proceeding in connection with Trial No.1183 of 1999 arising out of Complaint Case No.581-C of 1997 pending in the court of Shri P.N. Rai, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bettiah, West Champaran including the order dated 20th June,1999. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 466, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners have also prayed for setting aside the order dated 4.9.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah in Cr. Revision No.86 of 2000. By the said order, revision preferred against the order of cognizance was rejected.2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 had filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah alleging therein that both the petitioners had committed offences under se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. None appeared on behalf of complainant opposite party no.2.2. This is an application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the Complaint Case No. 2894(C) of 2004 filed by opposite party no.2 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, for offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code wherein on transfer to the court of Shri Raj Kishore Rai, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, cognizance was taken for the offences under sections 403 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 07.02.2005.3. The relevant facts of the case is that there was an agreement between the complainant and accused no.1 M/s Amway India Enterprises (non-petitioner here-in-after referred as 'company') by virtue of which the complainant was made service partner of the said company on 29.07.2003, but, subsequently, breaking the tie, one Memorandum of Understanding ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
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 6th June,2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria in Raniganj P.S. Case No.192 of 1998 (G.R.No.1212 of 1998). By the said order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 467,471,193 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and directed for summoning the accused persons.2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2, namely, Anwar Ali initially filed a complaint in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.767 of 1998 arraying eleven persons as accused including both the petitioners, who were at the relevant time posted as Circle Inspector and Circle Officer respectively. The said complaint was referred to the police for its registration and investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Proced...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Heard Shri Uday Chandra Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Binay Kirti Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2.2. 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 25.1.2001 passed by Shri B.N. Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Begusarai in Nagar Police Station Case No.190 of 2000, G.R. No.1609 of 2000. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. It was further prayed to quash the order of cognizance dated 14.10.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in the said case. In this case, order of cognizance was passed for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.3. Short fact of the case is that a raid was conducted by the official of the Bihar State ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
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 7.2.2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawadah Sadar in Case No.1316 of 2001 whereby a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was converted to the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and both the parties were restrained from going to the disputed land.2. Short fact of the case is that a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated on the prayer made by the opposite parties 2 to 21. Subsequently, the said proceeding was converted to a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the order dated 7.2.2002.3. Aggrieved with the order of initiation of proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petition. On 7.10.2002, while issui...
Tag this Judgment!