Patna Court August 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.
Amar Laskar, and ors. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
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 21.9.2001 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Katihar in Complaint Case No.664 of 2001. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 447, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of summons against the petitioners.2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, which was numbered as Complaint case No.664 of 2001. In the complaint petition, it was alleged by the complainant that the accused persons forcibly plucked mangoes from five mango trees, which were standing over the land of the complainant. It was alleged that in the said occurrence, the complainant had suffered a loss of Rs.8,000/-. After filing the complaint petition, the complainant was examined on S.A. and in suppo...
Kali Prasad, and anr. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. There is none on behalf of opposite party no. 2 the complainant to represent this application.2. This is an application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the order dated 25.02.2005 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 248/2004 by learned Sessions Judge, Saran, confirming the order dated 24.08.2004 passed by Shri Hari Shankar, learned Judicial Magistrate, Chapra, refusing the prayer the discharge the petitioners for the offences under Section 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code in case arising out of Mashrak P.S. Case No. 99/1999.3. Undisputedly, opposite party no.2 filed Complaint Case No. 1308/1999 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra for the offence under Section 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners alleging therein that they arrived in the house of one Baijnath Prasad where minor son of the complainant Akhilesh aged a...
Rameshwar Pandit. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Ashok Priyadarshi, 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 First Information Report of Samastipur Sadar P.S. Case No. 398 of 2002, G.R. No. 1207 of 2002 dated 04.08.2002 lodged by opposite party no. 2 under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code.3. The main contention against the First Information Report of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that with respect to same offence twice jurisdiction of criminal Court was invoked by one Ram Sakal Rai, but ultimately he lost the battle and thereafter, the opposite party no. 2 has got the case instituted, which is not at all maintainable. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that it is entirely a different matter, serious offences have been committed against the employer by joining in pla...
Subuhi Imam. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
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 26.4.2000 passed by Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No.196C of 2000. By the said order the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 claiming to be the husband of the petitioner filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna which was numbered as Complaint Case No.196C of 2000. In the complaint the complainant had arrayed the petitioner and other two accused persons as abettor for committing offence under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate after conducting enquiry by its order dated 26.4.2000 took cognizance of the offence under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and against the rem...
Nabab Ali, and ors. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
1. Three petitioners, who were at the relevant time Public Relation Officer, Foreman and Managing Director respectively in the Modi Industries Ltd., Modi Nagar, Gaziabad (U.P) have come before this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.1076 of 2001 including the order dated 26.9.2001 passed by Sri S.C. Pathak, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Siwan. By order dated 26.9.2001, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 323, 341 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.1076 of 2001. In the complaint petition, it was disclosed that the complainant was working as Welder Gas Cutter in the Modi Steels Industries Ltd. Modi Nagar, Gaziabad (U.P.) (hereinafter...
Ramayan Tiwari. Vs. State of Bihar.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-24-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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 21.5.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no.3, Rohtas, Sasaram, in Sessions Trial no. 290 of 2002 exercising powers under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure summoning the petitioner to face trial. 3. Admittedly, one Chenari P.S. Case no. 44 of 2000 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted at the instance of one Anil Tiwary against thirteen persons including the petitioner who alone, after investigation, was exonerated by the Police who submitted charge sheet against twelve accused persons. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and after commitment the trial commenced wherein two witnesses Siddhu Tiwary and Ram Dulari Devi were examined. Prayer on behalf of the informant was made to add the petitioner ...
Krishna Kant Jha, and ors. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-24-2010
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 22.1.2002 passed by the learned 3rd Addl.Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Cr.Revision No.247 of 2000/11 of 2001. By the said order , the learned Addl.Sessions Judge has set aside the order dated 22.11.2000 passed by Shri P.K.Shukla, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sitamarhi in Complaint Case No.C1-377 of 2000, Trial No.1066 of 2000. The learned Magistrate by order dated 22.11.2000 had rejected the complaint petition under Section 203 of the Code of criminal Procedure.2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2, who is daughter in law of petitioner nos.1 and 2, had filed a complaint, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.C1-377 of 2000. In the complaint petition, it was alleged that when the complainant was sleeping, in the night at about 10.00 P.M. on 12.5.2000 accused petitioners intruded into the house of the compla...
Ramadhar Singh, and anr. Vs. State of Bihar.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-24-2010
1. Both the Criminal Appeals are being heard together and being disposed of by common order as the same arise out of the same judgment, dated 19th March, 2004, passed by Shri B.K. Dikshit, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, IV, Arrah, in Session's Trial No. 130 of 1997 by which the appellants of both the appeals have been convicted under Sections 302, 307 and 148 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code. However, no separate punishment awarded for offence under Sections 148 and 307 of the Penal Code.2. The prosecution case, as alleged in the fardbeyan of the informant Arun Singh (P.W. 10) is that on 15.10.1996 at about 09.00 a.m. he along with his brother Motilal Singh (deceased) went to see their field which they have purchased from Shobha Rani, Mohni Kuer and Shivjee Singh situated in village Ghoradei. When they reached in the said field they saw accused persons, namely, Ramadhar S...
Sukhdeo Mahton. Vs. Ram Lakhan Mahto, and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-24-2010
1. The defendant No.1 has filed this first appeal against the judgment dated 28.6.1993 and the decree following thereupon signed on 9.7.1993 by Sri M.P. Mandal, the learned Sub Judge IV, Begusarai in Title Suit No. 58 of 1991 decreeing the plaintiffs- respondents' suit.2. The plaintiffs-respondents filed the aforesaid title suit No.58 of 1991 praying therein for the declaration that the deed of gift dated 26.2.1991 is void ab initio and further for partition of the suit properties detailed in Schedule B of the plaint.3. The plaintiffs claimed the aforesaid relief of declaration about the gift deed and for partition alleging that there had been partition between Raktoo Mahato and Soman Mahato sons of Ganesh Mahato. Soman Mahato had two sons Butan Mahato and Kailu Mahato. There had been partition between Butan Mahato and Kailu Mahato also. Butan Mahato died leaving behind Jitu Mahato. Jitu Mahato had three sons. One is defendant No.1, the other is plaintiff and third son's son is plainti...
Ashok Kumar, and anr. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-24-2010
1. When the case was called out, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment nor any one appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2, despite the fact that the opposite party no.2 had entered his appearance through his advocate.2. I have heard Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and I have also perused the materials available on record.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 22.9.2000 passed by Shri Hussain Nawaz, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.1383(C) of 2000. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of summons against the petitioners.4. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint in the cou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »