Rajasthan Court February 1991 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.
Peeru Khan and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)51
B.R. Arora, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated July 27, 1988, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur, by which the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners under Section 307 I.P.C.2. Bismilla W/o Shri Jahoor Mohamed, on June 26, 1987, lodged a First Information Report at Police Station, Mahamandir, Jodhpur, against Peeru Khan, Kallu Khan, Bafati, Chandu, Gafoor, Babu Hussain, Chhotu, Smt. Chhoti, Smt. Kulsam and Smt. Nathi and on this report, the police registered a case against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341 and 336 I.P.C. The police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan against Peeru Khan, Gafoor Khan, Chhotukhan, Hussain, Kallu Khan, Babu Khan, Bafati, Chandu Khan, Smt. Chhoti, Smt. Kalsum, Smt. Nathi and Bafati under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323 and 325 I.P.C. in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial ...
Sunil Rathore Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)62
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated September 6, 1989, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur, by which the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the application filed by Parvej Iraqi and ordered for the delivery of the truck to him on certain conditions and rejected the application filed by Sunil Rathore.2. Sunil Rathore, on February 17, 1989, filed a complaint in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur, against Parvej Iraqi under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant purchased truck No. RRN 5318 from Sattar Khan for a consideration of Rs. 68,000/- and paid the entire amount to Sattar Khan, who handed-over the truck alongwith the duly signed letters and the registration etc. to the petitioner. After the purchase of the truck he got it repaired through Chootu Mistri and spent a considerable amount on it repairs. On January 13, 19...
Kanhaiya Lal and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)85
B.R. Arora, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated January 21, 1988, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Parbatsar, by which the learned Executive Magistrate, treating the case as of an emergency, attached the property in question and appointed the Station House Officer, Police Station, Markrana, as the Receiver to manage the property.2. Shiv Raj moved an application before the Station House Officer, Police Station, Makrana, on January 10, 1988, against Shri Ram, Sukh Ram, Om Prakash, Ram Niwas, Ganga Ram and Ram Karan under Sections 107, 116 and 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was alleged in the application that on January 9, 1988, at about 11.00 a.m., non-petitioners No. 1 to 7 took-away the goods of his hotel and forcibly took the possession of the plot in question. As they have illegally taken the possession of the plot and there is a danger to his life, also, from these persons, proper action may be taken against them. It was, also, mentione...
Satish Chand Vs. Bhonrilal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Raj75; 1991(2)WLN237
ORDERS.N. Bhargava, J. 1. This is a revsion petition against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Hindaun City, rejecting the application of the petitioner-applicant filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.2. The plaintiff non petitioner No. 1 filed a suit on 31-7-1984 for eviction against the defendant non petitioner No. 2 on several grounds including sub-letting the disputed shop to the petitioner. In para 5 of the plaint, it has been stated as under: --^^mDr nqdku tksM+krHkh ls izfroknh us fcyk btktr oknh] fdlh eqds'k y?kq m|kksx fg.Mksu izksikbZVjlrh'k pUn tSu dks lcySV dj fn;k gS**3. The suit was contested by the defendant and in reply of para 4 of the plaint, it has been submitted as under:--^^izfroknh fnukad 31&3&81rd dk fdjk;k oknh dks ;Fkk le; vnk dj pqdk gS A blds ckn fnukad 1&4&81ls oknh us mDr tksM+k nqdku eqrnkfo'k esllZ eqds'k y?kq m|ksx fg.MksuizksizkbZVj lrh'k pUn iq= uRFkh yky tkfr tSu fuoklh fg.Mksu dks 200@&:i;kekgokj fdjk;s ij ns nh rFkk oknh fnukad 1&4&81 ls mDr eqds'k y?...
Jagdish and ors. Vs. Pokhar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1991
Reported in: II(1992)ACC672; 1992ACJ266
K.C. Agrawal, C.J.1. This appeal under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') dated 12.1.1987 rejecting the application of the appellants made under Section 110-A of the Act.2. The appellants moved a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming Rs. 3,00,000/-as compensation on account of the death of Ladu Ram. According to the appellants, the deceased Ladu Ram was working as palledar. At about 3.30 p.m. on 27th June, 1983, while he was going in tractor No. 2988 for loading and unloading sarson bags, to Laxmi Oil Mills, suddenly he fell down from the tractor on account of its rash and negligent driving by Ram Chandra, the driver. The tractor passed through his body as a result of which his spleen was ruptured and he died on the spot. Along with the deceased, two or three other palledars were also sitting in the tractor.3. A claim p...
Madan Mohan Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN122
D.L. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner was an employee in the Education Department. FIR No. 53/64 for offence Under Section 408 IPC was filed against the petitioner at Police Station Bani Park, Jaipur. Challan was also submitted against the petitioner. Petitioner raised the objection that he cannot be prosecuted without the permission of the appointing authority. Reference was made to this Court by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3 Jaipur City in criminal revision No. 7/71 vide his order dated 30.1.72. This Court decided the reference vide order dated 8.1.73. Reference was rejected and directions were given that the State Government will be at liberty to prosecute the accused Madan Mohan Saxena after according proper sanction in accordance with the law. Petitioner retired in the year 1971. He was claiming pension and the respondents raised the objection that the FIR is pending against him. Petitioner, filed the writ petition before this Court on 4.5.89. Respondents were served with the noti...
Nasri Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN121
V.S. Dave, J.1. This order is in continuation of the order which was passed by this court on 27th July, 1987 when I had referred the matter to the Division Bench, as I differed with the observations made in Amar Lal v. State by my learned brother Hon'ble Lodha J., as then he was, framing the following question:Whether the decision in the aforesaid case lays down a general preposition that in all Automobile Accident Cases there should not be a lesser punishment than one year punishment and a fine of Rs. 15,000.Hon'ble the Chief Justice placed the matter before the Division Bench which answered the question vide its order dated 11th July,1988 as under:The decision in Amar Lal v. State, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 65/83 decided on 6.5.87 does not lay down a general preposition though, in all Automobile Accident Cases there should not be lesser punishment than one year's imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 15,000.The case should have been listed immediately after the reference was answe...
Himmat Mal Soni Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN456
B.R. Arora, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated December 5,1989, passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirohi by which the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner.2. Accused Fatiya and Ladura were tried for offences Under Sections 487 and 380, IPC for the theft committed at the house of non-petitioner Chunni Lal, by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Abu Road on October 1.5,1988. In that theft gold and silver ornaments and Rs. 900/- were stolen from the house of Chunni Lal. The learned Magistrate, after trial, convicted the accused Fatiya and Ladura for offences Under Sections 457 and 380, IPC and sentenced them to undergo 2 1/2 years rigorous imprisonment to each accused and a fine of Rs. 200/- Under Section 457, IPC and two year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1500/- each for the offence Under Section 380, IPC. The learned trial court, (also ordered for the delivery of the bangles to the compla...
Himmat Mal Soni Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)60
B.R. Arora, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated December 5, 1989, passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirohi by which the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner.2. Accused Fatiya and Ladura were tried for offences under Sections 407 and 380 IPC for the theft committed at the house of non-petitioner Chunni Lal, by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Abu Road on October 15, 1988. In that theft gold and silver ornaments and Rs. 900/- were stolen from the house of Chunni Lal. The learned Magistrate, after trial, convicted the accused Fatiya and Ladura for offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC and sentenced them to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment to each accused and a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 457 IPC and two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1500/- each for the offence under Section 380 IPC. The learned trial Court, also, ordered for the delivery of the recovered amount of Rs. 900/...
Champa Vs. State of Raj.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLC116; 1991WLN(UC)544
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. Being aggrieved against the order framing charges under Section 379-411 IPC, the petitioner Champa has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the said charges and further proceedings in criminal case No. 368/87 pending in the Court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Aklera.2. The case was registered on the report of one Rati Ram which was lodged at P.S. Javar (Camp Mela Harnavda). The prosecution case, as per the report, is that a theft of his two Oxen was committed eight months ago. One Ox, lateron, was recovered from one Kajod Meena and for the second Ox, he was searching. It is further alleged that the informant had come to cattle fair at Harnavda in search of his second Ox and the same was found in the possesion of the co-accused Devi Ram.3. On the aforesaid information police arrested Devi Ram and recovered the Ox from his possession. The prosecution case is that the co-accused Devi Ram intimate the police during the investigation that h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »