Patna Court February 2011 Judgments
Bishwanath Saran Yadav. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
1. The petitioner, through this writ application, has prayed for a direction upon the concerned respondents for initiating departmental proceedings as also for allowing adequate compensation for the physical injuries sustained by the son of the petitioner due to the physical assault by the police/jail officials while he was in jail custody in connection with Banmankhi P.S. Case No. 69 of 1999 (Annexure-1) registered for the alleged offence under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code to which section 411 of the Penal Code was later on added. The further prayer is for punishing the concerned officials for committing the Contempt of Court by disobeying the order dated 20.03.1999 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea in the aforesaid case directing for the treatment of the son of the petitioner at P.M.C.H., Patna.2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that while his son was in jail custody in connection with the previously mentioned Banmankhi P.S. Case No. 69 of 1999 he was b...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Kumar Prasad Sinha, and anr. Vs. State of Bihar.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-19-2011
1. Two petitioners, who are husband and wife, have 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 8.3.2001, and passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali in Sarai P.S. Case No. 30 of 2000. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 49(2) & 49(3) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981.2. Short fact of the case is that, a written application of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Hajipur Circle, Hajipur, addressed to the Officer-in-charge, Sarai Police Station, Vaishali Hajipur against the petitioners and others alleging therein commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 49(2)(g) & 49(3)(d) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 an F.I.R. vide Sarai P.S. Case No. 30 of 2000 was registered on 1.4.2000. According to F.I.R., the ...
Tag this Judgment!Roma MitrA. Vs. State of Bihar.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-19-2011
1. The sole petitioner, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has prayed for quashing of an order dated 30.9.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bhagalpur in Complaint Case No. 454 of 2000. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 63, 67 & 68 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.2. Short fact of the case is that, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur vide Complaint Case No. 454 of 2000 making an allegation against the petitioner for commission of offence under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 469 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 67 & 68 of the Copy Right Act. The complainant disclosed that she had registered herself for Ph.D. research in Bhagalpur University and her subject was "POLITICAL MOBILISATION AND CASTE- CONFLICT IN BIHAR SINCE 1967 TO 1980 - A SURVEY"...
Tag this Judgment!Radhey Shyam Pandey. Vs. State of Bihar.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-19-2011
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 8.8.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Gardanibagh ( Sachiwalaya ) P.S. Case No.532 of 2000, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 409, 420,468, 471, 167, 199, 193, 32, 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal code . The petitioner has further prayed for directing the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance of offence of the offences on the police report. Alternatively it has been prayed to direct for investigating the case by an independent Agency i.e. Central Bureau of Investigation.2. Short fact of the case is that the petitioner earlier filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No. 1318 ( C) of 2000 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna arraying altogether 25 persons as accused for commission of offence of crimina...
Tag this Judgment!Mossammat Sabulan, and anr. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
1. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in C.R. No.840 of 2001/T.R. No.1129 of 2002 including order dated 12.12.2001, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Darbhanga has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 420, 465, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga vide C.R. No.840 of 2001 against seven accused persons which include petitioners, on accusation of commission of offence under sections 420, 464, 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that one Abdul Rahman had transferred the portion of his land and a house by registered sale deed in favour of the complainant in the year 1989 and thereafter, he was in peaceful possession over the property in question. It was alleged th...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Kumar. Vs. State of Bihar.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
1. In both the cases, similar points were involved and as such, both the cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Cr. Misc. No. 10240 was filed for quashing of an order dated 8.12.1998 passed by Sri A.K. Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Nawada in G.R. Case No. 1598 of 1996 / Tr. No. 385 of 2000 whereby the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 467 , 468, 471, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 48(2)(f) and Section 48(7) of the Bihar Finance Act (correctly Section 49) and directed for summoning the petitioner. After the order of cognizance, the petitioner Rajendra Prasad approached this court by filing the previously mentioned petition questioning the order of cognizance mainly on the ground of want of prosecution sanction. On 20.9.2000, while issuing notice to Opposite Party No. 2 this court directed that further proceeding in G.R. No. 1598 of 1996 / Tr. No. 385 of 2000 pending in the court of Judicia...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Prakash Mandal, and ors. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
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 27.2.2001, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gogri in Case No. 497(M) of 2000, by which the learned Magistrate has converted the proceeding initiated under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure into a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners have further prayed for quashing of an order dated 2.5.2001 passed by the learned Magistrate whereby a receiver was appointed in respect of disputed land in the said proceeding.2. Short fact of the case is that on the basis of an application filed on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 to the Gogri Police mentioning therein that there was a dispute with regard to an area of 2 Bigha agriculture land appertaining to Khata No. 1, Plot No. 359 at Mauza- Baisa, the Police conducted an enquiry during which second party (petitioners)...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Prasad. Vs. State of Bihar.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
1. In both the cases, similar points were involved and as such, both the cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Cr. Misc. No. 10240 was filed for quashing of an order dated 8.12.1998 passed by Sri A.K. Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Nawada in G.R. Case No. 1598 of 1996 / Tr. No. 385 of 2000 whereby the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 467 , 468, 471, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 48(2)(f) and Section 48(7) of the Bihar Finance Act (correctly Section 49) and directed for summoning the petitioner. After the order of cognizance, the petitioner Rajendra Prasad approached this court by filing the previously mentioned petition questioning the order of cognizance mainly on the ground of want of prosecution sanction. On 20.9.2000, while issuing notice to Opposite Party No. 2 this court directed that further proceeding in G.R. No. 1598 of 1996 / Tr. No. 385 of 2000 pending in the court of Judicia...
Tag this Judgment!Gyandeo SharmA. Vs. State of Bihar.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
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 21.12.2006, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in G.R. No.980 of 1999/ Tr.No.82 of 1996, whereby it was ordered to frame charge under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 27.11.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 300(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected.2. Short fact of the case is that on 10.3.1990, three F.I.Rs were lodged in Shri Krishna Puri Police Station almost in a connected occurrence. The first case i.e. S.K. Puri P.S. Case No.31 of 1990 was registered for the offences under Sections 146, 148, 149, 323, 307, 336, 353 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 5 of the Damage to Public Property Act aga...
Tag this Judgment!indradeo Chaudhary. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
1. The petitioner, who is husband of opposite party no.2, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 31.7.2001 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa in Cr. Revision No.27 of 1999, whereby he had allowed the revision preferred by opposite party no.2 filed against the order dated 3.6.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hilsa in Case No.32M of 1997. The learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa, by its order dated 31.7.2001, has directed the petitioner to make payment of monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.1,000/- in favour of opposite party no.2 and Rs.400/- for her daughter. The learned Judicial Magistrate, by its order dated 3.6.1999, had rejected the petition filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The opposite party no.2, wife of petitioner, had initially filed a petition before the Additional Chief Judicial ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »