Rajasthan Court July 2011 Judgments
Bhanwar Singh Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the action impugned of the respondents whereby request made by him for recalling the order of penalty inflicted upon him vide order dt.18.07.2000 against which departmental appeal and so also the review petition preferred were rejected vide orders dt.03.08.2004 & 10.02.2006, may be recalled and set aside on the premise that in criminal case which was simultaneously instituted against him under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act he has been acquitted by the competent court of jurisdiction vide judgment dt.17.08.2010. 2. It is evident from the order impugned itself dt.11.03.2011 that enquiry u/R.16 of the CCA Rules,1958 was initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum dt.22.05.1995 but it appears that pending charge-sheet he stood retired from service and after being held guilty in the disciplinary enquiry he was punished with penalty of stoppage of 5% pension for first two years vide order dt.18.07.2000 a...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Jhirmiriya and Others Vs. State of Raj. and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
1. The aforesaid petition has been filed by three petitioners, namely, Pradeep Jhirmiriya, Pankaj Sharma, and Smt.Babita, who have been accused in a case pending for the offence under sections 498-A, 406 and 120B IPC, on the basis of a complaint filed by respondent No.2, before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. 2. Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned Senior Advocate, has submitted that a bare reading of the complaint filed by complainant, and the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. reveals that no prima facie offence, whatsoever, is made out against the petitioners. He further submitted that the petitioner Pradeep is cousin brother of complainant's husband (son of Mausi of complainant's husband), and the petitioners Pankaj and Babita are Nandoi and Nanad of the complainant, they had nothing to do with the family of the complainant and her husband. Even as per the thrust of the allegations of complainant, there is no allegation against these petitioners. Le...
Tag this Judgment!Jainab Bano and anr. Vs. the State of Rajathan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
1. The present petition has been filed against the order dated 17.02.2011, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh, Ajmer, whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the application filed by the prosecution to record the statement of petitioner, Jainab Bano, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 2. It may be mentioned here that the statements of Jainab Bano were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the I.O. and in these statements, Jainab clearly stated that she had gone with Naemuddin of her own free will and that she was a major lady. Along with the statements, various documents pertaining to the Nikah etc. have also been taken on record. Against the said order whereby the application filed by the I.O. was rejected by the learned Magistrate on 17.02.2011, now this petition has been filed claiming that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of Jainab should have been recorded. 3. The law in this regard is well settled that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can only...
Tag this Judgment!Hariom Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Applicants/respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance against non-applicant/petitioner. Learned Family Court, Kota vide its order dated 25.06.2011, allowed the application and directed the non-applicant/petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month to Kavita (wife) and Rs. 500/- per month to Kumari Siddhi (daughter), totalling to Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of application. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner is ready to keep his wife and daughter with him. He also submitted that on earlier occasion, a criminal case was lodged against the petitioner, wherein compromise took place, but soon thereafter the present application was filed, therefore, respondents are not entitled to get maintenance. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by the Family Court for awardin...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sarita and Others Vs. Pooran Mal Kanav.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
1. Both the parties are present in person. 2. Petitioners have preferred this revision petition against order dated 30.10.2009 passed by Judge, Family Court No. 1, Jaipur in Application No. 150/2005. 3. Brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the petitioners No. 1 to 5 in Family Court, No. 1, Jaipur for grant of maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month. Learned Court below, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record, allowed the application of Applicants No. 4 and 5, therein, namely Simran @ Sweety and Master Prince and directed the respondent to make payment of Rs. 3,000/- per month each to both the applicants (Total Rs. 6,000/- per month) with effect from 30.10.2009. Since no amount of maintenance was awarded in favour of the Petitioner No. 1, Smt. Sarita, wife of respondent, therefore, present criminal revision petition was filed for awarding the amount of maintenance ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. A joint application has been filed by the complainant-petitioner as well as accused-Respondents No. 2 to 4 under Section 320 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for attesting compromise arrived at between the parties and to dispose off the revision petition by acquitting the accused-Respondents No. 2 to 4 from the offence under Section 323 IPC on the basis of compromise. 3. The compromise is duly signed by the parties alongwith their advocates and the same has been attested and verified by Deputy Registrar(Judl.) of this Court. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of Parcha Bayan of injured Jagdish Prasad, F.I.R. No. 106/2000 was registered at Police Station Suroth, District Karauli under Sections 323, 341 and 379 IPC. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet under Sections 323, 341, 325 and 307 IPC was submitted in the Court of Civil Judge(Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun City, who committed the case for tr...
Tag this Judgment!Ramji Lal Vs. the Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner has preferred this review petition to review order dated 16th March, 2011 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3465/2011. 3. It is contended that in para 5 of the order two different dates have been given of sale deed i.e. 1st July, 2003 and 18th June, 2003, whereas there was only one sale deed dated 1st July, 2003, therefore, there is factual mistake in the order, which may be reviewed and writ petition be heard afresh. 4. The above writ petition was preferred against order dated 29th January, 2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Gangapurcity in Civil Suit No.25/2004. A bare perusal of order dated 29th January, 2011 (Annex.4 with the writ petition) will reveal that learned trial court observed in the bottom of page No.2 that in both the suits, a prayer has been made to cancel two different sale deeds. In these circumstances, the facts mentioned in para 5 of order of this Court were based on impugned order of the trial...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Chhote and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and examined the impugned judgment dated 28.02.2009 passed by the trial Court acquitting the accused-respondents of the offence under Sections 148, 307, 307/149 IPC. 2. Submission of the learned counsel for appellant is that the trial Court committed an illegality in acquitting the accused-respondents of the offence under Sections 307, 307/149 IPC, whereas there was sufficient evidence available on record, particularly CT-Scan Report, wherein injury sustained by injured was shown as grievous, therefore, order of the trial Court is liable to be set aside and accused persons are liable to be convicted under Sections 307, 307/149 IPC. 3. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for appellant in the light of reasons assigned by the trial Court for acquittal of accused-respondents of the offence under Sections 148, 307, 307/149 IPC. 4. It is relevant to mention that trial Court has already convicted the accused respondents of the off...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Tejmil Hussain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2011
1. Heard the learned public prosecutor and after considering her submissions in the light of reasons assigned by the trial court for acquittal of the accused respondent, I find this case to be fit one to grant leave to appeal. 2. Leave to appeal is, accordingly, granted. 3. Appeal be registered. Accused respondent be summoned through bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees : Five Thousand Only). Record of the trial court be summoned immediately. 4. Learned counsel for complainant Smt.Hema Bojwani has filed an application(6391 dated 12th July, 2011) for releasing the recovered articles vide Ex.P.6 and to hand over the same to her on Supardginama during pendency of this appeal. 5. From the impugned order dated 31st March, 2005 passed by trial court, it is clear that articles No.1 to 8 seized / recovered vide Ex.P.6 belong to Hema and trial court itself directed that the said ornaments article Nos.1 to 8 be delivered to complainant Hema after expiry of period of limitation of ap...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish Prasad and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Petitioner has preferred this leave to appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 7th June, 2010 passed by trial court, whereby accused respondent Jagdish Prasad was acquitted of the offence under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act and accused respondent Sheodaan @ Daan was acquitted of the offence under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act by giving the benefit of doubt. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 9th July, 2002, SHO Police Station Motpur, while on patrolling duty, saw one person running after seeing the police jeep, therefore, they caught hold of him and made an enquiry from him. He stated his name to be Jagdish. When a search was made after due notice then smack weighing 7 gram 980 milligram was recovered from his possession. On enquiry Jagdish stated that he has purchased the said smack from Daan @ Sheodaan. The sample was taken and sealed and the same was sent for analysis to FSL. After completion of investigation, a charge s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »