Rajasthan Court April 1998 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.
Smt. Bhano and anr. Vs. Babu Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4768; 1999(3)WLC131
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners have prayed that the order dated 26-4-1991 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 1/1991 whereby it was declared that Babu Singh was entitled to the possession of the disputed prop-erty and the receiver of the property was directed to deliver possession to Babu Singh as well as the order dated 8-5-1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 39/1991 be quashed and set aside.2. It appears from the order dated 18-3-1991 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh that the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Sangaria filed a complaint in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh, under Sections 107/151/116(3) and 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was stated in the complaint that there was apprehension of breach of peace and there was a dispute betwe...
Chand Prakash Vs. Bega Ram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC85; 1998(1)WLN340
Amaresh ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the lower Court.2. This petition is directed against the order dated 7.1.1988 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 75 of 1986. By the above mentioned order the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, discharged the petitioner of the offences under Sections 427 and 430 of the Indian but found a prima facie case to frame charge under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the facts as alleged by the prosecution do not constitute any of offence under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, in trial of the petitioner on charge under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code amounts to abuse of the process of the court and deserves to be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order.4. According to complaint filed by the non...
Ram Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)WLN342
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. In all the three petitions, the complainant on whose report the cases were registered and investigated is the same person and the property in dispute is the same. Hence it is proper that all the three petitions should be disposed of by a common order.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2.3. The case of Nanda, Non-petitioner No. 2 is that he purchased agricultural lands bearing Nos. 4394 and 4395, measuring 7 bighas and 3 biswas, situated in village Jahajpur, from Babu Lal for a consideration of Rs. 35, 000/- Sale deed was executed on 17.12.1990. The name of Babu Lal was entered in the revenue record and Nanda, the complainant was cultivating the fields at the instance of Babu Lal and on the date of the execution of the sale deed the crop sown by Nanda was standing in the field. Nanda, Non-petitioner No. 2, lodged three first information reports at the Police Station Ja...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›