Patna Court September 2010 Judgments
Bishwanath Pal, and ors. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-30-2010
1. Three 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 2.2.2000 passed in Trial No.1169 of 2000 arising out of Guthani P.S. Case No.8 of 1998. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 366A and 368 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 on 19.12.1997 filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.1152 of 1997. In the complaint petition, it was alleged that on 27.11.1997 in the morning at about 4.00 A.M., his daughter, Nitu Kumari, aged about 16 years left for attending call of nature, but she did not return. On enquiry, the complainant learnt that his co-villager Subhash Pal ( petitioner no.3) and Chandrika Pal ( petitioner no.2) both sons of petitioner no.1 and three unknown persons had kidnapped his daughter and taken her ...
Tag this Judgment!Naseer Ahmad Ansari. Vs. State of Bihar, and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-30-2010
1. Petitioner raised a big hue and cry when an office order dated 23.6.2002 contained in Annexure-5 was communicated to him. This is the order by virtue of which his pay has been re-fixed and because of the said re-fixation it has the effect of lowering the scale which the petitioner was drawing as an interim measure. An order for recovery as well, as indicated in the said impugned order, has been passed. Petitioner therefore wants quashing of this order on many a grounds, which would be taken note of in the subsequent part of the order.2. Petitioner came into service in the year 1975 in the Work Charge Establishment as a Work Sarkar. He continued on that post, which was not permanent engagement or appointment because engagement in the work charge establishment has never been treated to be the part of the establishment. But since large number of persons similarly situated had been working in the State of Bihar for various number of years, a policy decision was taken by the State to bri...
Tag this Judgment!Shakila Khatoon, and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-30-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.2. This is an application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the order dated 28.01.2001 passed in Complaint Case No. 1934/2001 Tr. No. 1114/2002, taking cognizance for the offence under sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code and order dated 16.11.2005 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.) Gopalganj, dismissing Criminal Revision No. 101/2002/19/2005.3. Undisputedly, the complainant opposite party no.2 has filed the complaint case with assertions that there is a will in his favour with respect to certain lands including subject matter of the proceeding here which subsequently stands covered in a registered deed of gift in favour of some of the accused persons, when it came to knowledge of the complainant on his persuasion initially the accused persons agreed to execute a deed of relinq...
Tag this Judgment!Basanti Devi. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-30-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.2. Perused supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner. None turned up on behalf of learned counsel for the complainant opposite party no.2 in spite of appearance in the case much before.3. This is an application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of order dated 10.06.2005 passed in Complaint Case No. 443/2003/858/2006 by learned S.D.J.M. Jehanabad taking cognizance of the offence under sections 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code.4. The complainant opposite party no.3 filed the complaint with assertion that in the year 1960, five decimals of land was purchased, out of which over four decimals land house was constructed, remaining was left for kitchen garden, but on 08.11.2002, the petitioner arrived and tried to make construction by taking possession, on objection, it reveals that he also got a sale deed with respect to on...
Tag this Judgment!Anjani Kumar SinhA. Vs. Mr.Udai NaraIn SinhA.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-30-2010
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 24.5.2002 passed by Sri V.K.Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.460C of 2002. By the said order the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and summoned the petitioner.2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.1, who was proprietor of M/s Kumar Building Construction, filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna which was numbered as Complaint Case No.460C of 2002. In the compliant, the complainant had arrayed the petitioner, his wife and his brother-in-law as accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. It was alleged in the complaint petition that he had taken land of the petitioner for developing and constructing a building under an agreement on 5.2.2001 and thereafter he started construction work. It was...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Kasam Rajmani Shaikh. Vs. Ram Bhajan Mahto, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-29-2010
1. The plaintiff has filed this first appeal against the judgment dated 17.11.1978 and the decree signed on 25.11.1978 by Sri S.N.P. Sunderka, Sub Judge-II, Gaya in Title (Partition) Suit No. 17 of 1976 dismissing the plaintiff's suit for partition.2. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit claiming 1/4th share in the suit property. Her case in short is that the common ancestor of the party Chamari Mahto got the suit properties in the partition with his brothers 50 years ago. The said properties have been mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint. Chamari Mahto died leaving behalf two sons namely Shivdayal Mahto and Luxman Mahto. Luxman Mahto died issueless 35 years ago whereas Shivdayal Mahto died 30 years ago. Shivdayal Mahto had two sons namely Bodhi Mahto and Rohan Mahto. Bodhi Mahto died 15 years ago leaving behind his two daughters Shyamphul Devi, the plaintiff and Kesar Devi, the defendant No.2. The defendant No.1 Ram Bhajan Mahto is the son of Rohan Mahto. It is stated that Rohan Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Nath Pandey, and ors. Vs. State of Bihar.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-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 28.4.2003 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj, Rohtas in Nasriganj (Kachwan) P.S. Case No.174 of 2002 (G.R. No.1008 of 2002). By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 147, 149, 188, 379 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2, who is own brother of petitioner nos.1 to 4, filed a written complaint before the Officer-in-charge, Kachwan Police Station, Rohtas alleging therein that petitioners had stolen crops from the field of the informant. It was disclosed that accused persons, at the time of occurrence, were variously armed. On the basis of the written complaint, an F.I.R. vide Nasriganj (Kachwan) P.S. Case No.174 of 2002 was registered against all the five accused persons and after thoroughly investigating the case su...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Md. Wajahul Islam, and anr. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. In this case earlier notice through substituted service was issued to Opp.Party no.2, even though she preferred not to appear. However on 28.7.2010, while hearing the present petition, it was felt by this Court to again send notice to Opp.Party no.2 through advocate, who was conducting complaint case before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Katihar in Complaint Case No.833 of 1999. The report suggests that the notice was validly served on learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2, who was appearing before the court below. Again she has not preferred to appear before this Court.2. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 23.09.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Katihar. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.3. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 claimin...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Charan. Vs. State of Bihar.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. The sole petitioner, who was Executive Engineer in the Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, has approached this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash an order dated 26.2.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in Barauni P.S. Case No.13 of 1993. By the said order ,i.e. order dated 26.2.2000 the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Section 467, 468, 420 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code.2. Short fact of the case is that an agreement was entered in between M/ S Barauni Tiles and the State Bank of India, Baranui Fertilizer Township Branch, Begusarai . As per the agreement, the payment of M/S Barauni Tiles for supply of Tiles to the Irrigation Department of Galudih Division was required to be made through Bank, but subsequently the Executive Engineer, Minor Distribution Division Galudih, Ghatshila made direct payment of Rs.6,39,307.00 to M/S Barauni ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Jagdish Rai. Vs. State of Bihar.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in all the three cases, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel representing the informant. Since all the three petitions arise out of one case, they have been heard together and being disposed of by Composite order.2. The relevant facts for consideration is that one Janaki Devi was undisputed owner of the subject matter of the proceeding who executed two registered sale deeds for her property having an area of 3 Kathas 9 Dhoors respectively on 16.03.2001 and 17.03.2001 in favour of opposite party no.2 on payment of consideration. The informant further averted that in the house in question Chandeshwari Prasad Singh, deceased father of petitioner no.3 in Cr. Misc. No. 9336/2007 was a tenant who assured to vacate the house within a short period and he along with other petitioners persuaded the informant to enter into transaction as the property in question is free from any encumbrance and dispute but after purcha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »