Patna Court September 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.
Sachidanand Singh, and ors. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-13-2010
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 17.4.2003 passed in Complaint Case No.1113 of 1999 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 498A, 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal code. 2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.1113 of 1999 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, alleging therein against all the petitioners for commission of offences under Sections 307, 376, 125, 147, 148, 325, 509, 498A, 323, 334, 352, 355, 358 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the complaint petition, it was alleged that while the opposite party no.2 was returning from court after doing pairvi in her case and she arrived at a lonely place, all the aforesaid accused persons intercepted the complainant and ...
Fuleshari Devi, and ors. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-13-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2.2. This is an application on behalf of four petitioners seeking quashing of the order dated 30.03.2005 passed by Shri H. Ansari, Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, in complaint case no. 204C/2005 taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 417, 465 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code besides quashing of entire proceeding before the court below.3. The relevant facts of this case is that opposite party no.2 claiming herself purchaser of a piece of land by virtue of registered sale deed executed by one Deojhari Kunwar as self and Karta of the family constituting herself and only son Dhananjay Kumar Singh, who appeared as witness in the deed dated 18.10.2002, subsequently petitioners perforce got a deed executed in their favour by said Dhananjay Kumar Singh claiming the land falling in his share on partition without paying any consideration.4. The oppo...
Sudarshan JhA. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-09-2010
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 31.8.2000 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur in G.R. No.138 of 1994/Tr. No.1126 of 2000.2. Short fact of the case is that the opposite party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.39 of 1994 against the petitioner on an allegation that petitioner had committed offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal code. It was alleged that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was Manager-cum-Secretary of Imadpatti PACKS. The complainant had claimed himself as Chairman of the said society. It was alleged that the petitioner had collected sale proceed for an amount of Rs.31,600/-, but said amount was never deposited in the account of society and as such it was alleged that the petitioner had committed an offence un...
Akash KhuranA. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-09-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. None appeared on behalf of the complainant opposite party no.2 inspite of service of notice earlier in this case.2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the entire proceeding including order dated 17.06.2005, passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, taking cognizance for the offences under section 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code in complaint case no. 785C/2005.3. Complainant opposite party no.2 deals with business of film distribution to whom petitioner's company approached for distribution of a film under making and there was agreement for such distribution under the territories of Bihar and Jharkhand, accordingly, the complainant in two installments advance Rs. 3.5 lakhs, but due to some reasons production of the film was delayed and the complainant could not be replied satisfactorily of his queries a...
Hari Krishna JhA. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-09-2010
1. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had approached this Court in the month of April, 2003 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance, which was passed long back on 22.4.1997. By order dated 22.4.1997, the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code in Case No.467(M) of 1997.2. Short fact of the case is that a complaint was filed by Bihar State Khadi and Village Industries Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as "the Khadi Board") in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna against the petitioner, which was numbered as Case No.467 (M) of 1997. In the complaint petition, various allegations were levelled against the petitioner. Since it was an official complaint, taught Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna by its order dated 22.4.1997 took cognizance of offences, as stated above.3. Aggrieved w...
Meena Devi. Vs. the State of Bihar.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
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 4.6.1999 passed by Sri P.H.Ram, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Purnea in G.R. No.3013 of 1994 arising out of Barhara P.S. Case No.68 of 1994. By the said order, while exercising power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate has summoned the petitioner to face trial along with other accused persons.2. Short fact of the case is that a case was instituted on 30.10.1994 vide Barhara P.S. Case No.68 of 1994 for the offence under Sections 147, 341, 323, 447 of the Indian Penal Code against six named accused persons including the petitioner. However, after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against number of accused persons, but the petitioner was not sent up for trial. After submission of charge sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and while evidence was go...
Bhagwan Prasad, and ors. Vs. Ram Avtar Prasad, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
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 16.11.2002 passed in Complaint Case No.C744 of 2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.1 filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, which was numbered as C744 of 2002. The complainant had alleged in the complaint petition that accused persons falsely persuaded the complainant to arrange marriage of complainant's daughter with petitioner no.2, Umesh Prasad @ Dr. Umesh Prasad, who is son of petitioner no.1 and brother of petitioner nos.3 and 4. A false information was given that petitioner no.2 was an M.B.B.S. Thereafter, the complainant got the marriage of his daughter settled with petitioner no...
Chhabi Lal Pandit, and ors. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
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 2.4.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj in connection with Complaint Case No.C706 of 2001. By the said order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 420,465,467, 468, 323, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and summoned the accused persons.2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.706C of 2001. In the complaint petition, it was alleged that in the year 1980, petitioner no.1 had agreed to take some land of the complainant on lease for seven years @ Rs.1000/- per year and, as such, as per lease agreement, Rs.7000/- was to be paid to the complainant. For the purposes of executing the lease deed, petitioner no.1 and co...
Raj Kumar Pandey. Vs. State of Bihar, and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
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 21.1.2003 passed by Shri S.K. Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Aurangabad in G.O.74 of 1995/Tr. No.29 of 2003, whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge petition. In this case, at the stage of charge, petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge. However, the learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, has rejected the discharge petition.2. Short fact of the case is that on the basis of fardbeyan of the petitioner in the year 1995, an F.I.R. vide Kutumba P.S. Case No.80 of 1995 was registered on 3.9.1995 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 380 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against eight named accused persons. After registering F.I.R., police started investigation. However, during investigation, the police found the allegation made by the petitioner in the F.I....
Chandra Bhanu Prasad. Vs. State of Bihar.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
1. On call, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment.2. On perusal of order sheet, it appears that on 25.8.2010, repeated prayer was made to pass over the case. The case was passed over with an indication that no further adjournment shall be granted. On 26.8.2010, when the case was called out, learned counsel for the petitioner wanted adjournment to ascertain the status of the case in respect of other accused persons. The case was adjourned for a week. It was indicated that in the meanwhile, learned counsel for the petitioner may bring on record the copy of the charge sheet by way of supplementary affidavit. Today, when the case was called out, none appeared either to press the petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. On perusal of the record, it appears that order dated 26.8.2010 has not been complied with. No supplementary affidavit has been filed.3. The petitioner, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »