Rajasthan Court January 2012 Judgments

Ram Krishan Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

Court: Rajasthan

This habeas corpus petition was filed by Ram Kishan Sharma, the petitioner after his daughter Kumari Sonam Sharma who was the student of Class 11th of Tangore Public School, Mansarovar, Jaipur who went missing on or before 13th March, 2010. A report being F.I.R. No.138 of 2010 was registered at Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur in this respect for an offence under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. and in which one Chandra Shekhar son of Shri Nathu Lal was also named as an accused, as it was believed by the petitioner that he was responsible for having kidnapped his daughter Kumari Sonam. As Kumari Sonam Sharma could not be traced and the petitioner was not satisfied with the investigation, he presented this habeas corpus petition on 14.06.2010 before this Court in which apart from the officials of the State, Chandra Shekhar, his parents and family members were also arrayed as respondents. This Court ordered that notices to be issued to the counsel for the State with further direction to trac...

Mahadev Singh Vs. State of Raj

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 2012CrLJ356(NOC)

A letter has been received from Mahadev Singh. The letter has been treated as a letter petition by this Court. Vide order dated 17.1.2012, this Court had appointed Mr. Manish Tak, as amicus curiae to argue this case on behalf of the petitioner. Through the letter, he has prayed that directions should be issued to the jail authorities for considering his case for permanent parole. According to learned counsel Mr. Manish Tak, the petitioner had been granted the benefit of three emergent parole. Therefore, he is eligible for being granted the permanent parole. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner's case should be considered for permanent parole. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that Section 32A of the NDPS Act, contains a bar and prevents the suspension, remission or commutation of a sentence passed under the NDPS Act. Since the grant of permanent parole to the tantamounts to suspension of the sentence, permanent parole cannot be grante...

Sandeep Bhatra Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 2012CrLJ1819

1. A short but an important question comes up for consideration in this case, as to when the order of granting anticipatory bail becomes operative. 2. The grievance of the informant petitioner is that the accused respondent No.2 has violated the condition imposed by the High Court while granting anticipatory bail on 27.03.2009, which has compelled him to file this application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. with the prayer that the aforesaid order of anticipatory bail be cancelled. 3. The accused respondent No.2 had preferred an application for anticipatory bail (1809/2009) in FIR (43/2009) registered at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur City, Jaipur for the offences under Section 420 and 467 IPC. The anticipatory bail application was considered and decided by the High Court, in presence of the counsel for the informant petitioner, on 27.03.2009 and after holding that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of anticipatory bail, it was ordered as under:- ̶...

Nand Kishore and Others Vs. Smt. Rukmani Devi and Others

Court: Rajasthan

1. Both these appeals have come up for the re-consideration in view of the judgment and order dated 21.10.05 passed by the Division Bench in the DB Civil Special Appeal No. 20/86. 2. The factual matrix of these appeals is narrated as under :- 2.(i) The appellants of the S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 56/74 Smt. Rukmani Devi and Sampat Devi,(original plaintiffs) filed a civil suit being No. 70/73 (14/68) against Shri Nand Kishore and others, the respondents in the said Appeal, (original defendants) in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Court No.1, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”)seeking partition of the properties mentioned in para 4 of the plaint and seeking declaration that the plaintiffs were entitled to the one-fourth share in the said properties, and seeking further prayer that the plaintiffs be put in separate possession of their share in the said properties. It appears that the said plaint was subsequently amended by the plaintiffs for seeking one-fi...

Khinya Ram Vs. Uma Ram and Others

Court: Rajasthan

Dinesh Maheshwari, J. This intra-court appeal by the defendant in a revenue suit for division of holdings is directed against the order dated 14.11.2002 as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.5695/1994. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and in consequence, while setting aside the order passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board'/'the Board of Revenue') as second appellate court, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and passed the preliminary decree for partition in his favour alongwith the respondent No.5 Girdhari to the extent of 1/3rd share in the suit property. The concluding paragraph of impugned order reads as under:- “Consequently, there is merit in this petition. The same stands accepted. The judgments of the appellate court as also of the Board of Revenue to the extent that the title on the basis of adverse possession has accrued in land of khasra No.66 stands quashed. P...

Hari Shankar Sharma Vs. Puran Singh and Others

Court: Rajasthan

1. The defendant-appellant has preferred this Civil First Appeal against the judgment and preliminary decree dated 12.8.1994 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Bharatpur in Regular Civil Suit No.80/93 (122/88) whereby the partition suit filed by plaintiff-respondents has been decreed. 2. It is an admitted fact that the property in dispute originally belonged to common ancestor of the parties and, therefore, it was a coparcenary Hindu Undivided Family property. The disputed property consists of three different properties, the first being in the form of house property, the second a shop and the third property is in the form of “Bagichi” consisting of open land and a 'Shivalaya' situated on it. The appellant-Hari Shankar who died during the pendency of this appeal and plaintiff-respondents-Shri Puran Singh and Prem Nidhi are brothers, whereas rest of the respondents are their sisters. It is also an admitted fact that property Nos.2 and 3 as described above are not p...

Kum. Lalita Chaudhary Vs. State of Raj. and Others

Court: Rajasthan

Instant petition is directed against the order passed by the Mining Engineer dt.08.01.2002 revoking the grant of mining lease sanction in favour of the petitioner vide order dt.28.06.2001 without affording opportunity of hearing and the appeal/ revision which he preferred before the authorities were also rejected by the Additional Director (Mines) and the State Government vide their orders dt.22.08.2005 and 03.07.2006 respectively. It has been alleged in the writ petition that petitioner applied for grant of mining lease for mineral masonry stone for an area of 9997.1 sq. meters near village Khatehpura, Tehsil and District Jhunjhunu and after complying with the formalities mining lease came to be sanctioned in favour of the petitioner by the competent authority vide its order dt.28.06.2001 on certain terms and conditions incorporated in the sanction order itself and endorsement thereof was also made by the Mining Engineer to the District Collector, Jhunjhunu for grant of NOC. However, ...

Lrs of Brij Lal Vs. Jagdish Prasad and Others

Court: Rajasthan

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. 2. In relation to the premises situated at Hanumangarh Town and leased out for commercial purpose, the plaintiffs-respondents Nos.1 to 5 filed a suit for eviction, inter alia, on the ground of second default in payment of rent while alleging that the suit premises were initially taken on rent by late Shri Chunilal and later, his son, the defendant No.1 Shri Brijlal, had been carried on business therein as the tenant. The learned Trial Court, after taking evidence and hearing the parties, proceeded to decree the suit by its judgment and decree dated 21.11.2001. 3. The defendant No.1 Brijlal preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree so passed by the learned Trial Court. However, it appears that the possession of the suit premises was handed over to the landlord on 18.02.2002 in execution of the original decree. Then, the defendant-appellant Brijlal expired on 07.04.2005. An application ca...

Sunita Tasera Vs. Lalit Kumar Jagrawal

Court: Rajasthan

1. This order shall dispose of the application filed by appellant-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred ‘the Act’) by which the appellant has prayed that interim maintenance amount @ Rs.15,000/- per month and other sums as mentioned in the application including litigation expenses may be granted to her from respondent-husband. 2. It is an admitted fact that marriage according to Hindu Rules took place between the parties on 23.5.91 and thus, appellant and respondent are legally married wife and husband and out of their wedlock a son was born, who at present is of the age 9 years and is residing with his mother-appellant. The parties, are living separately since the year 2002. 3. The respondent-husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Act against the appellant on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The appellant filed written reply to that petition and the learned trial Court after considering the evidence avai...