Rajasthan Court May 2008 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.
Subhash Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3071
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.2. This case has very peculiar facts and circumstances. The prosecutrix is an Advocate, by profession, who had lodged a complaint to the Superintendent of Police (South), Jaipur on 21.1.2008 and the same was registered as FIR No. 36/2008 on 4.2.2008 for the offences under Sections 415, 493, 420, 506, 376 and 120B IPC. The allegations made in the report are that as both the parties belong to the same caste, their families had agreed to solemnize the marriage of the complainant with the petitioner Subhash. Subsequently, it was found that the maternal grand-mother of the petitioner was of the same 'Gotra' as that of the complainant family. Therefore, the elder members of the family of the accused had declined to have the matrimonial relations, on that Count.3. The complainant has alleged that the petitioner Subhash had sexual relations with her, against her will, and as such he had commit...
Nand Kishore and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3432
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer that the complaint No. 164/2007 filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioners under Sections 12, 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') be quashed.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the respondent No. 2 left the house of the petitioners on 24.5.2006 finally and thereafter no act or omission was committed by any of the petitioners with respect to the respondent No. 2, therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable in this case because the Act has come into force on 26.10.2006. He has argued that the Act cannot be given retrospective effect in view of the provisions contained in Article 20 of the Constitution 6f India, He has next contended that under Section 2(q) of the Act the proceedings can be initiated only against adult male person and, therefore, the proceedings initiated again...
Jay Prakash Pandya Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN417
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In all the above six writ petitions, the petitioners were appointed on the post of Laboratory Assistants in accordance with the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 on the basis of their qualification on substantive basis.2. The claim of the petitioners is that the respondents are not releasing increments of the petitioners under under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1989 w.e.f. 01.09.1988 and under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1998 w.e.f. 01.09.1996 respectively. Although the petitioners were appointed as per their qualification, which is Higher Secondary (Agriculture) from the Board of Secondary Education Ajmer, Rajasthan.3. It is stated at Bar by learned Counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in this case is squarely covered with the judgment passed by Hon'ble Division of this Court reported in RLW 1995 (1) (Raj.) 222 wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench has held as under:9. The s...
Prahlad Singh and 6 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2651
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Out of twenty nine persons arraigned before learned Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Jhalawar for the murder of Manohar Singh, Nagu Singh, Inder Singh and Bapu Singh, twenty four were convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated February 13, 2004. However Kesar Singh and Ram Singh sons of Onkar Singh did not prefer any appeal and only twenty two appellants have preferred instant appeals. The conviction and sentence awarded to appellants are as under:Prahlad Singh s/o Ram Pratap, Kalu Lai s/o Sriram, Babu Lal s/o Fateh Lal, Tanwar Singh s/o Man Singh, Prithvi Singh s/o Ram Lal, Inder Singh s/o Bhawani Lal, Man Singh s/o Umrao Singh, Bhagwan Singh s/o Prabhu Lal, Jagdish s/o Ram Lal, Man Singh s/o Salag Ram, Amar Singh s/o Purilal, Balchand s/o Ram Prasad, Bapu Lal s/o Ramlal, Suresh Kumar s/o Sriram, Prahlad Singh s/o Man Singh, Kanhi Ram s/o Prabhu Lal, Nand Ram s/o Salagram, Ram Prasad s/o Behru Lal, Shri Ram s/o Jetram, Ram Prasad s/o Jet Ram, Prahlad Singh s/o Nathu ...
State Vs. Rehman Khan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj535
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 22.8.1998 passed by learned Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar (Raj.) (hereinafter to be referred as ' the learned trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 18/97 by which he acquitted the accused-respondent Aasin for the offence under Sections 307 readwith Section 34 & 323 IPC and also acquitted accused-respondent Rehman for the offence under Section 307 readwith Section 34 IPC but convicted him for the offence under Section 323 IPC and released him on probation by giving him benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act 1958 but imposed a prosecution expenses of Rs. 1000/- to be deposited in the Court which should be given to injured Sorab's mother Smt. Mena in the form of compensation.2. In brief, the facts of the case are as under:On 13.5.1997 complainant Sumsuddin (PW. 3) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 5) in P.S. Ramgarh, Alwar with this effect that on 12.5.1997 at abo...
State Vs. Prithavi Raj and Nawal Kishore and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj486
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 13.12.1999 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Baran (Rajasthan) (hereinafter to be referred as the learned trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 8/99 by which he acquitted the accused-respondent No. 5 Chitar Lal from all the charges levelled against him and acquitted the accused-respondents Ramkunwar, Ramcharan, Harinarain and Prithavi @ Nawal Kishore for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307, 307/149 IPC but convicted them for the offence under Sections 323 and 324 IPC and released them for the period for which they have already confined in jail.2. In brief, the facts of the case are as under:Complainant Amar Lai (PW. 1) S/o Ghasilal B/c Mali R/o Jalawar lodged a written report (Ex. P. 3) in Police Station Nahar Ghar that today at 11.00 A.M. when he and his sons Hansraj^PW. 2) and Harivallabh (PW. 3) went to. the jungle for bringing wood, at that time accused-re...
Hajari Vishnu Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2496
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. In this case, the petitioner has challenged the order Annexure P-1 dated 15.12.2004 passed by Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Mount Abu.3. Admittedly, the petitioner is working on the post of Revenue Inspector in the Municipal Board, Mount Abu.4. According to Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeals) Rules, 1958, an employee can be placed under suspension in contemplation of any enquiry or if a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. Rules 13 of the Rules of 1958 reads as under:13. Suspension.-(1) The Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Government in that behalf may place a Government servant under suspension.(a) where a disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated or is pending, or(b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal office is under investigati...
K. Kumaran Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3049
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record placed by the petitioner as well as the complainant.2. The accused-petitioner was taken in custody on 13.5.2008 from his office at Chennai. The instant case arises out of the First Information Report (No. 230/07) registered at Police Station Aravali Vihar, District Alwar for the offences, inter alia, under Sections 420 and 120B IPC.3. Subsequently, the accused-petitioner approached the High Court of Judicature at Madras for bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The High Court of Madras passed an order on 5.1.2008, whereby anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner for a period of three weeks. One of the condition in the said order was that the petitioner shall also approach the concerned jurisdictional Court for anticipatory bail within a period of three weeks.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties is on account of commercial transactio...
Sanjay Sukhadia Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3188
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The main grievance of all above petitioners in the above writ petitions is that in the Granite Policy, 1995 framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 65A of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short 'the Rules of 1986'), as amended in 1996 and in the Granite Policy, 2002 the State Government declared that 20% of the plots for excavation of granite shall be kept reserved for the persons of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, yet even after more than a decade, have not implemented the said policy and consequently have not allotted a single granite mine to any of the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. Before these writ petitions, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7078/2003 was filed in this Court wherein the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.3.2004 directed the State Government to delineate and demarcate the plots which are reserved for the persons be...
Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3073
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. I have perused the First Information Report reproduced in the bail application and also the rejection order passed by the learned court below on 17.5.2008. The incident, in this case, had taken place on 30.5.2007 and a report came to be lodged by Vishal Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, Roopwas, District Bharatpur. After investigation, challan came to be filed against four persons, namely, Arjun Singh, Raja Ram, Laxman and Kailashi.3. The bail applications pf Raja Ram, Laxman and Arjun Singh came to be considered by this Court on 13.11.2007 and after perusing the evidence on record filed along with the challan against the said persons, the following order was passed:The incident in this case had taken place on 31st May, 2007, when about 300 to 400 persons raising slogans in respect of Gurjar reservation, came armed with various weapons like Lathi, Gun, Desi Katta, Farsa. They had also raised slogans against the police ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »