Court : Uttaranchal
J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. Jagmohan Singh filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 898 of 2009 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein he sought a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing a first information report dated 15.09.2009, lodged by Upendra Singh Maniyari, on the alleged commission of the offence of abetment to suicide, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid first information report was registered as Crime Case No. 97 of 2009 at Police Station Basant Vihar in District Dehradun.2. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 898 of 2009 it was alleged by the aforesaid Jagmohan Singh alias Raj, that his marriage was settled with Sweta alias Ritu, sister of the aforesaid Upendra Singh Maniyari. The engagement ceremony between Jagmohan Singh and Sweta alias Ritu was held on 14.01.2009, whereafter, the parties agreed, that the marriage ceremony would be held on 28.09.2009. On 13/14.09.2009 Sweta alias Ritu consumed poison. She died on 14.09.2009. On 15.09.2009 Upendra S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : 2008CriLJ2579
J.C.S. Rawat, J.1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment & order dated 23-6-1989 passed by Sri M. L. Singhal, the then Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in S.T. No. 16 of 1989 whereby the appellant Khim Ram was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302, IPC. The appellant Khim Ram was also convicted and sentenced to undergo for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 394, IPC. He was also convicted and sentenced to undergo for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 201, IPC. In default of payment of fine under Sections 394, IPC and 201, IPC, the appellant was to undergo for further six months and four months R.I. respectively. All the sentences were to run concurrently. However, co-accused Chandra Ram was not found guilty of the charges under Sections 302, 394 & 201, IPC and he was acquitted accordingly. Co-accused Ratan Ram was not found guilty of the charge under Section 411, IPC and h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
1. This revision, preferred by the revisionists under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 19.7.2002 pased by the Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Criminal Appeal No. 4/2002, Chait Ram & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal as well as for quashing the judgment and order dated 27.5.2002 passed by the SDM, Ukhimath, Rudraprayag in Case No. 7/2002, State v. Chait Ram & Anr. directing the revisionists to execute a bond for Rs. 5,000/- each with two sureties in the like amount for keeping peace for a period of one year.2. In brief, the prosecution case is that Supervisor Kanoongo, Guptkashi submitted a chalani report dated 8.7.2001 before the SDM, Ukhimath in which he has stated that the complainant Nand Kishor, etc. and revisionists are the residents of the nearby villages and a public way runs form the village Sankri of the complainant to Guptkashi through Chauri Tok and the revisionists...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. By means of the these petitions, moved Under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal complaint case No. 1139 of 2003, Smt. Vimla Devi Pathak v. Shri Mahesh Chandra Pathak and Ors., relating to offences punishable under Section 498A I.P.C and one punishable under section Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, pending the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, and those of criminal case No. 486 of 2004, Smt. Vimla Pathak and Ors. petitioners v. Smt Janki Pathak and Anr. pending in said court.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Vimla Pathak got married to petitioner Mahesh Chandra Pathak on 12.03.2000. After their relations soured, the complainant lodged the first information report, which is registered as crime No. 02.02.2002, against the petitioners which was registered as crime No. 212 of 2002 relating to offences pu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.08.1999, passed by the Sessions Judge, Chamoli, in Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 1996, whereby said court has dismissed the appeal affirming the conviction recorded by the trial court (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli), in Criminal Case No. 496 of 1992, State v. Dharmanand and Ors. relating to offences punishable under Section 452/34 and 427/34 of I.P.C., Police Station Ukhimath, District Chamoli (now District Rudraprayag).2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record.3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant P.W. 1 Bhyuraj Singh, moved an application under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), before the District Magistrate, Chamoli, on 26.02.1992, on which the District Magistrate directed the In-charge of police station Ukhimath to register and investigate the case. It is alleged in the first information report by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. Heard.2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 02 of 2004 Smt Seema v. Azadveer and Ors. relating to offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C., and one punishable under section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, P.S Manglaur, District Haridwar, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D)/ Judicial Magistrate Roorkee.3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 2 Azadveer @ Pappu got married to respondent No. 4 Smt Seema on 08.03.2009. After her marriage she lived with her in laws house. Out of the wedlock one daughter was born. It appears that after some years the parties to matrimony could not pull well. It is alleged by the complainant/respondent No. 4 that she was taken by her husband Azadveer (petitioner No. 2) to her (parental house) in village Gadarjuda in district Haridwar, where he left her and tol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : 2005(2)AWC1363(UHC); (2005)2UPLBEC41
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing of the impugned order dated 21.3.2005 (copy Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, in criminal complaint case No. 1242 of 2004, Cantonment Board v. Kunj Bihari.2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioner is owner of bus No. UP-07/ J 8703, having stage carriage permit to ply the vehicle between Dehradun and Dakpathar. The road between Dehradun and Dakpathar is part of National Highway No. 72. This National Highway No. 72 (for brevity hereinafter NH-72) starts from Rishikesh with terminal point at Ambala. The said Highway pass through Dehradun, Ponta Sahib and Nahan. NH-72 was notified as National Highway vide Notification dated 6.1.1999 and before that it was a State Highway. On...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : 2007CriLJ746
ORDERJ.C.S. Rawat, J.1. This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 4-9-1988 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahnora. The trial Court had convicted the revisionist Under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced the revisionist to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in case of failure to deposit the amount of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month.2. Brief facts for the disposal of this revision are that the Food Inspector B.N. Dongal had taken the sample of mustard oil from the shop of the revisionist on 10-5-1988 at about 12.00 noon in the Village Kunwanli, District Almora. The said oil was purchased by the Food Inspector after making the necessary formalities as provided under the Act and the rule of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Thereafter, he sent the sample to the Public Analyst for analysis. The public analyst vide its report dated 17-6-1985 found that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
1. These revisions, preferred by the revisionists under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), are directed against the judgments and orders dated 20.8.2002 passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 41/2001,Rameshwar v. State of Uttaranchal and in Criminal Appeal No. 54/2001, Amar Singh @ Jhandu v. State of Uttaranchal, whereby the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.7.2001 passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar was partly allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded to the revisionists under Section 380 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) was set aside. However, the conviction of each of the revisionists under Section 411 IPC has been upheld and sentence awarded to each of the revisionists to undergo R.I. for six months was also affirmed.2. Since both these revisions involve common facts and arise out of the same offence, hence they are bein...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the applications and perused the record available.2. This criminal petition, moved u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No.2105 of 2008, State v. Gaurav Mishra & others, U/s 323/504/506/498-A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, pending before Addl. CJM-II, Dehradun.2. A compounding application No.842/2010 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner no.1 and complainant/ respondent no.2 along with which the respective affidavits of the parties have also been filed. In those affidavits, common averments have been made to the effect that the petitioner no.1-Gaurav Mishra and respondent no.2-Smt. Abha Mishra, who were the parties to the matrimony, have decided to settle their matrimonial disputes and, therefore, they entered into a compromise and now they are living happily together on their own volition. It is also stated by the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!