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.
Govind Kant Sharan. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.2. Since both these applications arise out of one common order involved one common question so they have been heard together and being disposed of by this composite order.3. Admittedly one official complaint case no. 63/2005 was filed on 20.07.2005 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara, by the then Registrar of Civil Court against the two retired employees of civil court who were in service at Ara civil court, being attached with the court of the office of 1st Additional District Judge, Ara.4. In the complaint case, it is averted that there was one Title Appeal No. 195/1966/30/2000 pending in the court of 1st Additional District Judge, Ara, arising out of Title Suit No. 102/1958/20/1960 was sent to the judgeship of Rohtas, but the Lower Court Records i.e. record of the suit was not sent, ultimately C.W.J.C. No. 5075/2003 was filed before this court accordingly a searc...
Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.2. The sole petitioner has come for quashing of entire criminal proceedings of complaint case no. 1327(C )/2004 pending in the court of Shri Sudhir Kumar Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, besides order dated 17.01.2005 passed therein taking cognizance for the offence under sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.3. The relevant facts of this case is that there was an agreement for sale between the petitioner and opposite party no.2 for a piece of land measuring 9.6 Kathas containing building also for Rs. 1,05,60,000/- (One Crore Five Lacs Sixty Thousand ) out of which through different installments a sum of Rs. 7,65,000/- was paid to the petitioner through different bank drafts payable at Hazaribagh and Rs. 4,35,000/- was deposited in cash in his account there, accordingly a total sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- was paid in advance. A...
Sunil Paswan. Vs.State of Bihar.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-03-2010
1. The sole petitioner, who was complainant in Complaint Case No.352C of 2000, has approached this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the following reliefs: "(i) For directing the Court below to take cognizance of offences against the police officials who are accused no.1 and 2 in the complaint case no.352(C)/2000 pending in the court of Sri B.B.Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Patna.(ii) For directing the court below to take cognizance of offences against the police officials (accused nos 1 and 2) in the complaint case no.352(c)/2000 as aforesaid under sections 191,192,193,194,195,196,330,348 of I.P.C. and under sections 3/4 of Scheduled Casete and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atocities)Act 1989.(iii) For issuance of a direction to the Court below for taking cognizance of offences against the accused nos 3,4 and 5 in complaint case no.352(c)/2000 as aforesaid.(iv) For issuance of such other direction/orders w...
Vinod Kumar Dudani. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-03-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Upendra Kumar for the opposite party, also perused Supplementary affidavit filed in Cr.Misc. no. 47986 of 2005 today and kept on record.2. Since both the cases are, in fact, inter related and parties are also the same, hence heard together and with the consent of the learned counsels being disposed of with this Composite order.3. The relevant facts in these two cases are that petitioner was posted at relevant time at Chapra as Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax.4. Opposite party no.2 filed one Complaint Case no. 728 of 2005 on 23rd July, 2005 for the offence under Sections 506, 387 and 388 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner stating therein that on 15th June, 2005 he called his father having business in the name and style Shanker Tea Store and on his arrival with one Om Prakash badly abused and threatened, demanded sum of rupees ten thousand causing great shock to the fath...
Manoj AmbasthA. Vs. Smt. Lakshmy Rani Kapoor.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-03-2010
1. Both the appeals under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') arise out of a common order dated 20.8.2005 passed in Matrimonial Case No.28 of 1996 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna under Section 25 of the Act. By the order under appeal, the learned court below has not accepted the claim of the appellant Lakshmy Rani Kappor ( for short 'the wife') for a lump sum permanent alimony of Rs.30 lakhs but has granted alimony by way of monthly payment of Rs.10,000/-. The wife has preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No.179 of 2006 for decree of her claim of Rs.30 lakhs by way of permanent alimony in one lump sum whereas Manoj Ambastha (for short 'the husband') has preferred the other appeal on the ground that the award of Rs.10,000/- per month by way of alimony is excessive.2. For proper appreciation of the issue involved in these appeals, a look at the background facts in brief appears to be relevant. The husband brought about Matrimonial Suit No...
Bhanwar Lal Singhi. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-03-2010
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 21.07.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No.2414 of 2000. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur vide Complaint Case No.2414 of 2000 against the petitioner on an allegation of commission of offences under Sections 384,387,147,148,379 of the Indian Penal Code. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that the complainant was doing business with the petitioner. The petitioner was running number of firms and the complainant/Opp.Party no.2 was doing business with number of firms. It was further disclosed that the petitioner was sending clothes to the complaina...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›