Rajasthan Court August 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.
Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ10
ORDERS.C. Mital, J.1. Petitioner Manoj Kumar has preferred this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. against the order of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jodhpur passed on 12-6-98 in Cr. Revision No. 1106/97 in Case No. 137/97 under Section 498A, IPC. which is pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur. The learned Judge dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under section 498A, IPC. However, the cognizance taken under section 406, IPC was set aside on the ground that the articles were already returned to the complainant.2. Now, the brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition may be stated :-3. The petitioner was married to Rashmi Kalla on 8-2-96. The relations between them became strained and Rashmi Kalla lodged a report against the petitioner that she was subjected to cruelty by him and he deserted her ...
Ganpat Lal and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ563; 1999(2)WLC101
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the original record of the case.2. By this petition Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners have prayed that the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 381/93, State v. Ved Prakash and Ors. pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No 2, Jodhpur in respect of offences punishable Under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 452, IPC be quashed, because the case is being adjourned from time to time without any progress and some of the co-accused have yet not turned up as the process issued to enforce their attendance could not be served.3. A perusal of the record of the lower Court shows that the case was instituted on 12-1-97 when the Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted a charge-sheet Under Section 173(2), Cr. P.C. against the petitioners and some other accused persons. Co-accused Kamal Singh and Ganpat Singh absented themselves on 18-9-97, which was the date fix...
Suvraj Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ731
G.L. Gupta, J.1. These appeals have been directed against the judgment dt. 28-9-1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh whereby he convicted appellant Suvraj alias Shoraj Under Section 376, IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default six months S.I.2. The prosecution case, as disclosed in the FIR lodged by Smt. 'L' on 21 -6-1995 at 4 p.m. is that on the previous day at about 4 p.m. when she was grazing cattle in the river bed the accused caught hold of her, flung, put her 'Loogra' in her mouth and committed rape on her. After the accused went away she took out 'Loogra' from her mouth and made cries for help, when Bhanwarlal Dhakar reached there to whom she told about the incident and he took her to her house where she narrated the incident to her mother-in-law Lali and uncle-in-law Hema. On this report a case Under Section 376, IPC was registered. After usual investigation, the police submitted a challan.3. To...
Kishori Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ840
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned public prosecutor and the learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2.2. The short question arising for decision in this petition is whether in an inquiry which is being conducted by a Court under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the persons against whom there are allegations of having committed offences covered by Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, have a right to take part in the inquiry and cross-examine the witnesses who may be examined by the Court either suo motu or at the instance of the complainant?3. By the order dated 13-8-1996 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur, in Criminal Case No. 98/96, Kishori Lal v. Banshi Lal in proceedings under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code held that the non-applicants against whom the inquiry was being conducted had a right to take part in the proceedings. He, therefore, rejected the application filed by the complainant party. ...
Bhanwar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-13-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)375; 1999CriLJ949; 1999(2)WLC103
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is prayed that the order dated 30th November, 1995 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate in criminal complaint case No. 474/95 Vishwa Karma Steel Sales v. Bhanwarlal be quashed. By the above mentioned order, the learned Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of the complaint filed by the non-petitioner No. 2 took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Vishhwakarma Steel Sales, Merta City, represented by non-petitioner No. 2, filed a complaint with Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Merta on 9th June, 1995. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused persons purchased some goods from the complainant for a consideration of Rs. 53,174.04. The transaction was duly entered into the accounts books of the complainant. Two cheques one dated 15-10-1994 for Rs. 20,000/-and the other dated 25-12-1994 for Rs. 20,000/-were given by the accu...
Hasan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-13-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ12
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2.2. The only question to be decided in this petition is whether the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh is legally competent to take cognizance of the alleged offences Under Sections 498A and 406, IPC and to inquire and try into the said offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure Code.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the instant case, the marriage of non-petitioner No. 2 had taken place at Dola in Punjab and the alleged offence of cruelty was committed in Punjab and not at Jhandawali, where the non-petitioner No. 2 is presently residing after she was turned out of the house by the petitioner Hasan Singh.4. The petition is contested by the non-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2.5. The facts of the case so far as they are relevant for the disposal of this petition may be briefly stated as below :-6. On 27th April,...
Ashwini Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1998
Reported in: I(2000)DMC317
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2.2. This petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 9th May, 1996 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sri Ganganagar, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 498A and 496, I.P.C. and directed the issue of bailable warrants against the petitioners, namely, Ashwini Kumar, Smt. Renu, Madan Lal and Ram Kumar.3. The facts of the case so far as they are relevant for the disposal of this petition may be briefly stated as below. 4. The complainant Smt. Manju @ Poonam (non-petitioner No. 2) submitted a complaint on 12th June, 1995 in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class/Sri Ganganagar alleging the commission of offences under Sections 498A and 496, I.P.C. In her complaint, she alleged that h...
Suresh Yadav and ors. Vs. the Registrar, Rajasthan Nursing Council and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj158; 1999(3)WLC165
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J. 1. The petitioners had completedtheir Nursing Training Course from Navodaya college of Nursing, Raichur (Karnataka) of the duration of three years from September 1992 to August 1995. They were registered with the Karnataka State Nursing Council, one of the copy of such registration is attached as Annexure-2. Annexure-4 is a certificate of registration by the Karnataka Nursing Council under the provisions of Karnataka Nurses, Midwives and Health Visi-tors Act, 1961. They had also completed the diploma course in General Nursing and Midwiferies and, therefore, are qualified to undertake the duties of trained Nurse/midwife as per Annexure-5. After obtaining no objection certifi-cate from the Registrar, Karnataka State Nursing Council, they had applied for registration with the Rajasthan Nursing Council. They were so registered with the Rajasthan Nursing Council. The petitioners were employed in Rajasthan since June 1996 as Male Nurse-II and are working in hospitals. The...
Gayatri Devi and ors. Vs. Ramesh Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: 2000ACJ898; 1999(1)WLC474
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Salmond on Law of Torts, 15th Edn. at page 306 wrote-'The maxim res ipsa loquitur applies whenever it is so improbable that such an accident would have happened without the negligence of the defendant that a reasonable jury could find without further evidence that it was so caused.' In Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 28 at page 77, this position is further explained as under-'An exception to the general rule that the burden of proof of the alleged negligence is in the first instance on the plaintiff occurs whenever the facts already established are such that the proper and natural inference arising from them is that the injury complained of was caused by the defendant's negligence, or, where the event charged as negligence 'tells its own story' of negligence on part of the defendant, the story so told being clear and unambiguous.'2. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co., 1977 ACJ 343 (SC...
Raju @ Rajendra Vs. Mst. Pushpa Devi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1998
Reported in: II(1999)DMC32; 1999(2)WLC81
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. This petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order dated 1st July, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Criminal Revision No. 19/95, Raju @ Rajkumar v. Mst. Pushpa Devi & Anr., whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the order dated 9th January, 1995, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner in Criminal Misc. Case No. 88/91, Smt. Pushpa Devi v. Raju @ Rajkumar.2. By the aforesaid order dated 4th January, 1995, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the application filed by Smt. Pushpa under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code for grant of maintenance to her and her minor son and awarded maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month to Smt. Pushpa Devi and maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month to Nathu.3. Accord...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »