Rajasthan Court May 2001 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.
Ashok Kumar Dadhich Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC430; 2007(2)WLN711
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner accused has prayed in this petition to quash the FIR and the proceedings in criminal case No. 48/2000 pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Nimbaheda qua him.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was a case of gang rape and the prosecutrix state that las many as 16 persons including the present petitioner accused committed rape on her. In support of it, she had given names of only four accused in the FIR and in supplementary statement she had given names of two more and when her statement was recorded under Section 164, she had given names of ten more accused. Thus, the story put forward by the prosecutrix is wholly unreliable, therefore, proceedings initiated against the present petitioner in criminal case No. 48/2000 be quashed. It is averred in para No. 2 of this petition that in connection with the offences punishable under Sections 376, 366 and 379 read with 37 IPC the learned trial court issued arrest warrant against the...
Banshi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3117; 2002WLC(Raj)UC150
ORDERH.R. Panwar, J.1. This Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 14-2-2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Hanumangarh whereby he dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition No. 5/2001 filed againt the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tibi dated 8-11-2000 whereby the learned trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 420, 467 and 471, IPC.2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the present petition, are that complainant Mohan Dass alias Mohanlal s/o Shrl Vadhumal Sindhi r/o Mehsana (Gujarat) filed a private complaint on 16-8-94 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tibi stating therein that agricultural land bearing Chaks Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 SBN and Chaks Nos. 1 and 3 KHR is owned by his father Vadhumal. It was alleged that Vadhu Mai expired on 10-11-65 but the accused-petitioner forged a General Power of Attorney dated 13-7-81 much after the d...
Behari Lal Sharma Vs. Union of India
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN436
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Since identical questions of law and fact are involved in all these miscellaneous appeals, I propose to decide them by a common order.2. These miscellaneous appeals have been filed by the appellants impugning the judgments dated May 10, 1999 of the learned Additional District Judge Neema Ka Thana (Distt. Sikar) rendered in civil miscellaneous cases No. 43/95, 44/95, 45/95, 46/95 and 47/95 whereby awards of the Arbitrator have been set aside.3. In order to understand the nature of instant appeals, it is necessary to mention some introductory facts. On applications filed by the claimant appellants under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act 1940 (for short 1940 Act) learned court below on August 5, 1995 appointed Shri Bhagwan Das Meena as arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties and declare the award within four months from the date of submission of claims by the claimants. Thereafter disputes of the claimants were referred to the Arbitrator, who pronounc...
Babu Lal Vs. Rajendra Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN129
Sharma, J. 1. This is a petition seeking transfer of a civil suit No. 22/1997 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jhalawar. In order to understand the nature of the petition it is necessary to mention some introductory facts. Those facts as recited in the petition are as under:(i) The plaintiff non-petitioner Rajendra Kumar (for short the plaintiff) instituted a suit on Dec. 17, 1997 for eviction bearing No. 22/1997 for eviction of the premises in question and arrears of rent against the defendant petitioner Babulal (for short the defendant) in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jhalawar. The plaintiff averred in the plaint that the defendant is a tenant in the premises @ of Rs. 2500/-per month and committed default in making payment of rent. (ii) On March 3, 1998 Mohan Lal and others who are near relatives of defendant, filed a suit (bearing No. 4/98) for declaration and cancellation of sale deeds and rent note against the plaintiff and the defendant ...
Amar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2802; 2002(5)WLC301
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. Amar Singh (appellant) has challenged by way of this appeal his conviction imposed by the Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Jhalawar by judgment dated 21-11-98 whereby for offence punishable under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short NDPS Act) the appellant has been sentenced to undergo ten years' RI with a fine of Rupees one lac (in default, further one year's RI).2. The prosecution case is that upon having received a secret information by the Central Narcotic Bureau that accused Amar Singh had illegally preserved and kept contraband 'heroin', a raid was conducted in the presence of motbir witnesses by the preventive raiding party on 10-4-1997 at 20.30 hours in the house of Amar Singh situated in Panchayat Gali Dharamshala Mohalla, village Choumhalla, Tehsil Gangdhar, District Jhalawar. The raiding party surrounded the house of Amar Singh. Amar Singh was found in his house situated at the above address and after introducin...
Mohammed Shafi Vs. NasrIn Bano
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC30; 2001(3)WLC465; 2001(3)WLN315
B.J. Shethna, J.1. An application was filed by the respondent-wife against the petitioner-husband under Section 3(1)(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1936 (for short 'the Act') before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class No. 2, Bhilwara wherein it was stated that she got married on 10.11.1990 as per the customs prevailing in the Muslims. At the time of marriage, Mehar amount of Rs. 21,000/- was fixed. However, there were no cordial relations between them, therefore, she had to file an application seeking divorce from her husband. During the pendency of that application-for divorce, her husband gave Talaq (Divorce) on 1.6.1995 and in Talaqnama, it was deliberately mentioned by her husband that his wife proposed 'Khulla' and in lieu thereof, she has let go 'Mehar amount' whereas she had never asked for 'Khulla' nor she has allowed to let go the Mehar amount. Her husband was Junior Fitter Attendant and draw...
Mahaveer and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-2001
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN171
B.J. Shethna, J.1. By way of this petition, the petitioners accused have prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 2.3.1998 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Udaipur whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused petitioners No. 1, 3, 4 and 5 for offence Under Section 498-A I.P.C. and against the accused petitioner No. 2 Under Section 498-A and 354 I.P.C.2. On 8.1.1997, the respondent No.2 Smt. Shashikala W/o Mahaveer Kumar (present petitioner No. 1) filed a complaint before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Udaipur. She has stated in it that the accused petitioner No. 1 Mahaveer Kumar is her husband, the accused petitioner No.2 Sagar Mai is her father-in-law, the accused petitioner No.3 Pavan Kumar is her brother-in-law, accused petitioner No.4 Smt. Tulsi Devi is her mother-in-law and accused petitioner No. 5 is her sister-in-law. She has stated that all the five accused were harassing her within short time o...
Vishnu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-2001
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN89
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner accused was working as Patwari. He was charged for mis-appropriating public money of Rs. 1008.07 during the period 1.8.1971 to 9.6.1973. The learned Magistrate on the conclusion of trial found him guilty for the offence punishable Under Sections 409, 467, and 468 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer two years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- for each offence and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month R.I.2. The aforesaid order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner accused in appeal before the Court of Sessions, which was allowed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh camp at Suratgarh and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate was set aside and the matter was remanded to the learned Magistrate for framing fresh charges against the accused in accordance with law.3. Accordingly, case was bifurcated into two cases by the learned Magistra...
The State of Rajasthan Vs. Ravindra Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-2001
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN242
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 10.5.1991 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Gangangar Camp- Shrikaranpur in Sessions Case No. 45/85 by which he acquitted the accused respondents Ravindra Singh, Amritpal Singh and Tajendra Singh of the charges for the offence Under Sections 120B, 124A IPC and Section 3/6 IPPR Act and 3/12 of the Passport Act, 1969 and accused respondent Tahalsingh of the charge for the offence Under Sections 120B and 124A IPC.2. The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:PW 9 Jilay Singh lodged a report Ex.P/9 with Superintendent of Police, Sri Gangangar on 17.9.1984 stating inter-alia that in FIR No. 292 dated 24.8.1984 of Police Station Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar for the offence Under Section 25 of the Arms Act, accused respondent Ravindra Singh was arrested and during investigation of that case, it came into light that on 7.6.1984, a meeting was...
Cosmopolitan Trading Corporation Vs. Engineering Sales Corporation and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Raj331; 2001(4)WLN6
Sharma, J. 1. These four civil miscellaneous appeals have been filed by the plaintiffs M/s. Cosmopolitan Trading Corporation and Harish Chand Bader impugning the orders dated February 3, 2001 of the learned District Judge Jaipur City whereby the applications seeking temporary injunction and attachment before judgment of the property of the defendant- respondents were dismissed.2. The parties shall be hereinafter referred in the same manner as they were arrayed in the plaints.3. The plaintiff M/s. Cosmopolitan Trading Corporation instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 17.40 lacs against the defendants 1 to 5. Alongwith the suit applications bearing No. 135/2000 under Order 38 Rule 5 and No. 137/200 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC were filed. Similarly the plaintiff Harish Chand Bader instituted another suit for recovery of Rs. 19.80 lacs against the defendants I to 5 with two applications under Order 38 Rule 5 and Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC bearing Nos. 134/2000 and 136/2000. The plaint...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »