Court : Himachal Pradesh
Surinder Singh, J.1. In this Revision Petition, the complainant has challenged the order of learned Sessions Judge passed on 4.2.2009 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 18 of 2008 whereby the order of framing the charge under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code against the respondents was set aside.2. The relevant fact can be stated thus. Petitioner, before her marriage resided in village Seri Tehsil and Police Station Amb District Una, H.P. with her parents. On 12.11.2003 she was married to respondent Vikram Sharma, resident of Chandigarh. She alleged torture and demand of dowry in her matrimonial home, by respondent No. 1 and his relatives, who are the co-respondents.3. She alleged in her compliant that in the month of April, 2004, respondent No. 1 is alleged to have slapped the petitioner and threatened her to tolerate all type of cruelty meted out to her. At that time she was carrying a pregnancy. Thus, fearing her death, she thought it proper to return to the parental house at Amb. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Rajiv Sharma, J. SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. 1. Plaintiff has instituted a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 24.08.2006. According to the plaintiff, he entered into an agreement with the defendants on 24.08.2006, for purchasing the land to the extent of 65 bighas, comprised in Khata No. 1, Khatoni No. 1 to 4, total Khasra Nos. 25, as per Jamabandi for the year 2001-2002, in which the defendants have share to the extent of 75 bighas out of total land, measuring 174. 13 bighas, situated in village Char, Pargana Lachrang, Tehsil Kausali, District Solan, H.P. The total sale consideration for purchasing the land to the extent of 65 bighas was fixed at Rs.48 lacs and out of the total land, a sum of Rs.4 lacs was paid to the defendants, which was acknowledged by them. The remaining sale consideration was to be paid by the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. plaintiffs on or before 23.04.2007, by which date, the sale deed was to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Sanjay Karol, J. 1. The issue, which arises for consideration in these petitions, is as to whether names of the Reporting, First and Second Review/Accepting Authority, authors of the Annual Confidential Reports (for short ACRs) of respondent Santosh Kumar Kaushal (hereinafter referred to as the applicant), can be disclosed to him under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, or not. 2. Applicant, who is presently posted as Manager (OSD) in the State Bank of India, The Mall, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as the Appropriate Authority), Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? sought following information vide application dated 17.8.2010 (Annexure P-1): œ(i) Whether cognizance was given to Self Appraisal submitted by the Reportee: Yes/No (ii) Name of Reporting Authority, Designation and Grade Scale: (iii) Name of Reviewing Authority/Accepting Authority, Designation and Grade Scale: (iv) Name of members of IInd Reviewing Authority/ Acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Kuldip Singh, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment, decree dated 9.4.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala (Camp at Una) in Civil Appeal No. 131/94 RBT. 33/95 affirming the judgment, decree dated 7.6.1994 passed by the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class (I), Amb in Case No. 209 of 1986 decreeing the suit of the respondents.2. The brief facts of the case are that respondents had filed a suit for declaration regarding land comprised in Khewat No. 418, Khatauni No. 1819/1 Khasra No. 6446 measuring 45 Kanals 1 Marla situated in village Lohara, Tehsil Amb, District Una on the grounds that suit land is in possession of the respondents as owners and prior to their becoming owners of the suit land it was in their possession as tenants on payment of rent to the original owners. It has been pleaded that appellants in connivance with the revenue staff got themselves entered as owners qua the suit land to the extent of share from Rabi 1984 at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Dev Darshan Sud, J. The appellants challenge the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla acquitting the accused of offences under Section 304-A I.P.C. Two appeals arise out of the same judgment, viz. Cr. Appeal No. 170 of 2005 titled State of H.P. and Surinder Pal Singh and Cr. Appeal No. 97 of 2005 titled State of H.P. Vs. K. Shanmugham and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. According to the prosecution, on 28.5.1995, 77 students (59 boys and 18 girls) and staff members of Dalhousie Public School, Badhani (Pathankot) (hereinafter DPS for short) went for a picnic on 28.5.1995 on the banks of river Beas at Tanda Patan, Indora. Both the accused according to the prosecution had been deputed by the head master to look after and ensure the safety of the students studying in 5th and 6th classes. 3. During lunch break, the accused entered the river and inspected the water level to ascertain whether it was safe for children. A zone was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1985CriLJ1463
T.R. Handa, J.1. Shri Hans Raj appellant No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 1983 is the father of Som Dutt appellant No. 2 of that appeal. Sarvshri Shiv Kumar Dinesh Kumar appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 1983 are also the sons of the said Shri Hans Raj. All these appellants were jointly tried for the offences falling under Section 302/34 and 307/34 I. P. C. in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur and Una districts at Una. The learned Sessions Judge found all of them guilty and vide his judgment dated 2-7-1983 convicted them under Section 302/34 and also under Section 307/341. P. C. Later vide his separate order of even date, the learned Sessions Judge sentenced each of the appellants to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302/34 I. P. C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 307/34 I. P. C. Hans Raj appellant was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2007HP52,2006(2)ShimLC394
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. By this common judgment, both the aforesaid appeals are being disposed of together.2. In these two appeals the judgment and decree dated 1st September, 2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Suit No. 199/1995: (RBT No. 4/2002 ) titled Tikka Brijendra Singh v. Smt. Usha Rani and Ors. is under challenge. Whereas RFA No. 271 of 2003 was filed by defendant No. 1 Ajay Singh (since deceased), RFA No. 310 of 2003 has been filed by the plaintiff Tikka Brijendra Singh Appellant Ajay Singh in RFA No. 271 of 2003 (who was defendant No. 6 in the Suit) had died during the pendency of the appeal. His legal representatives were brought on record and substituted as appellants vide order passed by this Court on 19th March, 2004 in CMPM No. 179 of 2004.3. Before I proceed to deal with the issues involved for adjudication in the two appeals, I indicate hereinbelow brief facts leading to the filing of the suit, from out of which these tw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Surjit Singh, J.1. Appellant, who was plaintiff before the trial Court, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 6th November, 1996 of learned District Judge, whereby reversing the judgment and decree, dated 25th August, 1992 of learned trial Court, i.e. Sub Judge 1st Class, Amb, suit of the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed.2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal may be noticed. Plaintiff-appellant Jaswant, now dead and represented by his LRs, filed a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of 3 Kanals 2 Marlas land bearing Khasra No. 1817 and that the entries in the revenue papers, showing deceased Kalu, the predecessor of the defendantsrespondents, as tenant of the said land under the plaintiff, were wrong, illegal and of no consequence, and the mutation, conferring the proprietary rights on said Kalu, which was attested, on the basis of said revenue entries, was illegal, void and of no effect on the rights of the plaintiff. It was p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1976HP19
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of this Bench:--'Whether this Court which has passed the judgment which is challenged in the L. P. A. by the affected respondents is competent to entertain and hear the stay application against its own orders ?'2. A writ petition was decided by my brother Thakur as a single Judge. He allowed the petition and directed the State and the Chief Electoral Officer to treat the petitioners as regular employees of the Election Department and not to revert them. Against his order a Letters Patent Appeal has been filed in this Court, and in that appeal the present application has been made for staying the operation of the order allowing the writ petition. The Letters Patent Appeal came on for admission before myself and D.B. Lal. J. The latter declared that he would not like to be a member of the Bench hearing the appeal, and accordingly an order was made that the case be listed before a Bench of which he was not a memb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1950HP42
Bannerji, J. 1 This is an application by the complainant Maghu directed against an order, dated 24th August 1949, of the District Magistrate, Mahasu, transferring the case against the opposite party, from the Court of Shri Hira Chand, Magistrate Third Class, to the Court of Shri Negi Roop Singh, Magistrate Second Class, for inquiry and trial. 2. The facts, in brief, are: the complainant, Maghu, made a complaint against the accused persons, Kanwar Rattan Singh and others, in the Court of Shri Gopi Chand, Magistrate Third Class, alleging that the accused persons had unlawfully trespassed on his land and committed mischief. The learned Magistrate took cognizance but he was succeeded by another Magistrate Third Class, Shri Hira Chand, who proceeded with the trial, and recorded the evidence of five witnesses. While he was recording the evidence of the Patwari, the accused persons moved the District Magistrate, Mahasu, for transferring the case from the Court of Shri Gopi Chand to some other...
Tag this Judgment!