Rajasthan Court July 2011 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 Saxena and anr Vs. State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-2011
1. As both the above petitions are directed against the order dated 21.12.2002 passed in case initiated on FIR No.193/92 and FR No.9/93 Police Station Uniyara, District Tonk, for quashing the order of cognizance in respect of offences under sections 365, 364 and 120 B I.P.C. against the petitioners, they are being decided by this common order. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Prahlad Gupta lodged a verbal report at Police Station Uniyara on 19.09.1992 alleging that his elder brother, Rakesh Kumar, came to the Uniyara bus stand on 04.09.1992. It was also alleged that Rakesh Kumar consumed liquor with Mool Chand and Ashok Kumar Saxena and they went from there between 9.00 P.M. and 10.00 P.M. to Mandawara village on a motorcycle to visit prostitutes. On reaching village Mandawara, they consumed another bottle of liquor, had sex with three prostitutes, and spent the night there. Ashok Kumar Saxena and Mool Chand Soyal returned back on the motorcycle but nothing is known about Rakesh K...
Bhajan Lal and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners have preferred this revision petition, challenging order dated 17.06.2011 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, No. 2, Deeg, District Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 22/2010, whereby cross-examination of P.W. 7, P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 was treated as complete. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are facing trial under Section 302 I.P.C. and they have not been allowed to cross-examine P.W. 7, P.W. 11 and P....
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ajay Aggrawal at Ajju.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition against order dated 20.04.2011 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur in Case No. 27/2010, whereby while framing charge against co-accused Sanjay for offence under Section 8/20 NDPS Act, discharged the accused-respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned trial court has committed an illegality in discharging the accused-respondent, but he is unable to point out any evidence against the accused-respondent to frame charge against him for the offence under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act. 4. From the facts mentioned in the impugned order, it appears that a search of shop of co-accused Sanjay was made and during interrogation, co-accused Sanjay stated that contraband has been supplied to him by Ajay. Copy of bank statement of Ajay was obtained, but from impugned order, it appears that no further evidence was collected by investigating agency, except the bank statement ...
Mandir Moorti Shree Radha Krishna Ji Maharaj Vs. State of Rajasthan an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 15.06.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Sikar, Head Quarter Shree Madhopur, whereby revision petition filed by party No.2/respondent Nos.2 to 5 was allowed and order dated 18.08.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shree Madhopur appointing Receiver on the disputed land was set aside. 3. From the impugned orders, it appears that petitioner filed a complaint on 08.06.2009 in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shree Madhopur. The said Court directed the SHO, Police Station Shree Madhopur to make an enquiry and to submit report. Thereafter, SHO, Shree Madhopur filed a complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C. against party No.1/petitioner and party No.2/ respondent Nos.2 to 5. Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate passed an order to register the complaint and issued notices to both the parties for the purpose of...
Ashok Kumar Saxena Vs. State of Raj.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-2011
1. As both the above petitions are directed against the order dated 21.12.2002 passed in case initiated on FIR No.193/92 and FR No.9/93 Police Station Uniyara, District Tonk, for quashing the order of cognizance in respect of offences under sections 365, 364 and 120 B I.P.C. against the petitioners, they are being decided by this common order. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Prahlad Gupta lodged a verbal report at Police Station Uniyara on 19.09.1992 alleging that his elder brother, Rakesh Kumar, came to the Uniyara bus stand on 04.09.1992. It was also alleged that Rakesh Kumar consumed liquor with Mool Chand and Ashok Kumar Saxena and they went from there between 9.00 P.M. and 10.00 P.M. to Mandawara village on a motorcycle to visit prostitutes. On reaching village Mandawara, they consumed another bottle of liquor, had sex with three prostitutes, and spent the night there. Ashok Kumar Saxena and Mool Chand Soyal returned back on the motorcycle but nothing is known about Rakesh K...
Dinesh Kumar and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-2011
1. Although matter is listed for orders on second application for suspension of sentence of appellant Dinesh Kumar and third application for suspension of sentence of appellant Ganesh Ram, but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for both the parties prayed that final arguments may be heard and appeal be disposed off. 2. At the request of parties, arguments were heard and appeal is being disposed off finally. 3. Appellants Dinesh Kumar and Ganesh Ram have preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment and order dated 02.08.2005 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No.114/97, whereby appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Accused- appellant Under Section Sentence Ganesh Ram 366 IPC To undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months' rigorous imprisonment. 376(2)(G...
HasIn Khan and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2011
1. Case was called yesterday, but no one was present on behalf of the petitioners, therefore, the case was adjourned for a day. Today also, when it was called, no one is present on behalf of the petitioners to argue the revision petition. 2. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and myself examined the impugned order as well as papers of charge sheet including medical reports of injured persons placed on record in the case. 3. This revision petition is directed against impugned order dated 29.06.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track), Hindaun City, District Karauli in Sessions Case No. 15/2010, whereby trial court passed an order to frame charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 147, 323, 341, 342, 427 and 308 I.P.C. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners before the trial court was that on the basis of evidence available on record, charge under Section 308 I.P.C. should not be framed against the petitioners and the case does not trave...
Deen Dayal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Complainant-petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the impugned order dated 01.09.2006 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge(Fast Track) No.2, Sikar in Sessions Case No.1/2006, whereby the trial Court did not frame charge of offence under Section 302 IPC against accused-respondent No.2 and directed to frame charge of offence under Sections 147, 148, 323 or 323/149 and 304/149 IPC and under Section 3/30 of the Arms Act. 3. Grievance of petitioner is that a charge under Section 302 IPC should have been framed against accused-respondent No.2 Gulshan, therefore, the trial Court committed an illegality in not framing charge against him for the above offence. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner and examined the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner is unable to point out any illegality in the impugned order or any evidence to show that ch...
Faddya at Anil Vs. State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Accused-appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against judgment and order dated 30.05.2007 passed by Special Court, SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Kota, in Sessions Case No. 76/2006, whereby trial court convicted and sentenced the accused appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment and under Section 452 I.P.C. to one year's imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on the basis of Parcha Bayan, Exhibit P-5 of informant/injured Gajanand, recorded in Emergency Ward, M.B.S. Hospital, Kota by Police on 31.10.2005, F.I.R. No. 531/2005 was registered at Police Station Gumanpura, Kota under S...
Kanchan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2011
1. Complainant-petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 04.09.2003 passed by the Civil Judge(Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shree Mahaveerji, whereby accused-respondent Nos.2 to 6 have been acquitted of the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149 and 326/149 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.11.1995, a report Ex.P2 was lodged at Police Station Shree Mahaveerji by complainant Kanchan about injuries inflicted on his person by accused Amrit Lal by 'Gandasa' and other injuries by other accused persons by 'Lathi' i.e. blunt object. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against accused-respondent Nos.2 to 6. The trial Court framed charges against accused-respondents, who denied the same and claimed trial. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW1 to PW10 and produced documentary evidence Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. Thereafter, statements ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »