Court : Jharkhand
1. petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482, code of criminal procedure for quashment of the order impugned dated 3.12.2009, passed by the cjm, ranchi in complaint case no.2042 of 2009, by which cognizance of the offence was taken under section 354, indian penal code and directed summons to be issued to the petitioner to answer the charges, which is presently pending in the court of shri taufique hussain, judicial magistrate, 1 st class, ranchi. 2. prosecution story in short was that a complaint was filed by the complainant-opposite party no.2 herein before the cjm, ranchi against the petitioner on 17.8.2009 stating, inter alia, that she was a widow and was living at chutia mohalla, ranchi with her mother and sister. the accused-petitioner was an eminent doctor having his eye clinic-cum- nursing home. previously the complainant-opposite party no.2 was working in the clinic of dr. (mrs.) rita verma, but later on she joined the nursing home of the accused-petitioner as a nurse and began to work there. she was treated well there for quite some time, but thereafter the accused petitioner began to tease her intentionally and put her in the night shift so that finding her alone, he would gawk and smirk at her. lastly, she narrated that the accused-petitioner had been threatening that in case she protested against his advances, she would be removed. however, she continued to tolerate the advances of the petitioner and ultimately, she decided .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2004(2)JCR98b(Jhr)]
vikramaditya prasad, j.1. the first appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree made in title suit no. 16/15 of 1975/1976 by the 1st additional subordinate judge, dhanbad.2. there is one pacca building having five rooms, servant rooms etc as described in the schedule of the plaint in plot no. 198 of mauza patherdih being mauza no. 162 under khata no. 52. the plaintiff filed a title suit for a decree for eviction of the defendant from the aforesaid premise and also for arrears of rent from 17.10.1971 to date and pendent lite. the case of the plaintiff is that by a registered deed of sale (ext-4) dated 19.3.1964 he had purchased 33 dismals of land in plot no. 198 of mauza patherdih being mauza no. 162 under khata no. 52 from shri hazarilal shahu for a valuable consideration thereafter he constructed one pacca house consisting of five rooms etc over that for which jharia water board had sanctioned water supply. after the construction of the building the plaintiff let out the same to different persons and lastly to the manager of m/s. new sudamdih colliery (p) ltd who occupied the same for residential purposes. the said m/s. new sudamdih colliery (p) ltd had no building of its own for providing residence to the manager of the said colliery. thereafter on 17.10.1971, the government of india by a notification in the official gazette took over the management of all coking coal mines including the said new sudamdih colliery and with the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : AIR2007Jhar34; [2007(1)JCR570(Jhr)]
..... it mentions the provisions at which the parties were at issue or which requires the consideration of the court, lord macmillan in his memoirs ''a man of law's tale' said:i never dictated my judgments. ..... it is equally well settled that the judgment should be so precise and so clear that a common man or a litigant must understand the judgment. ..... a common man cannot and shall not be able to understand the abbreviation and the words used in the impugned judgment. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi cr. revision no. 1076 of 2012 b. kumar @ brijendra kumar, s/o late ishwari prasad gupta resident of flat no.16/203, bannerghatta road, near meenakshi temple, bangalore, p.o. iim bangalore, p.s. hulimabu district bangalore, karnataka pin: 560076 ... ... petitioner versus 1. the state of jharkhand 2. director of mines safety cum inspector of mines, dhanbad region no.1, directorate general of mines safety, dhanbad, p.o., p.s. and district dhanbad ... ... ... opp. parties coram: hon'ble mr. justice ravi nath verma for the petitioner : mr. anoop kumar mehta, advocate mr. amit kumar sinha, advocate for the state : mr. b.k. prasad, a.p.p. for the o.p. no.2 : mr. rajiv sinha, a.s.g.i. mr. b.k. prasad, advocate c.a.v. on: 09.07.2015 pronounced on: 11/08.2015 the petitioner of this revision application calls in question the legality of the order dated 11.10.2012 passed by learned judicial magistrate, 1st class, dhanbad in c.m.a. case no.614 of 2000 whereby and whereunder a petition filed by the petitioner under section 239 of the code of criminal procedure (in short the code ) for his discharge, has been rejected.2. the facts, giving rise to present revision, lies in a narrow compass. the prosecution case which is based on a written complaint filed by the complainant opposite party no.2 on 01.12.2000 relates to an accident which had taken place on 27.09.1995 at 1.30 a.m. at below ground workings of x special seam worked though no.6 pit of union .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi cr. misc. no. 3375 o 1. shambhu nath khaware 2. digambar nath khaware ... petitioners versus 1. the state of jharkhand 2. dinesh sarewar @ dipu sarewar opposite parties --- coram : honble mr. justice d. n. upadhyay --- for the petitioners : mr. purnendu kr. jha for the state : a. p. p. for o.p. no. 2 : --- 06. 12.09.2013: this criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 27.2.2001 passed by learned judicial magistrate, deoghar in connection with p.c.r. case no. 676 of 2000, whereby and whereunder, the petitioners have been directed to face trial for the offences punishable u/s 406/420 ipc for which they were summoned. the case of the prosecution in brief is that an agreement took place between the parties against the sale of land, measuring 2 acres 64.5 decimals for which different deeds were likely to be executed at the instance of complainant by the petitioners. it is disclosed that the petitioners have received rs. 5,25,000/- as an advance and executed an agreement acknowledging the terms and conditions as well as the advance sums received by them. the complainant has further made out a case that the petitioners had executed some of the deeds complying the said agreement but thereafter they had executed sale deeds in favour of another persons after taking money from him and thus cheated the complainant and misappropriated the amount paid by him. the complainant had served with a legal notice but the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
..... 3092956 dg, crpf (shri man singh rawat, addl. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2007(2)BLJR1845; [2007(3)JCR57(Jhr)]
r.r. prasad, j.1. the sole appellant was put on trial to face charges under section 7 as well as under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the prevention of corruption act on the allegation that the appellant being a public servant demanded and accepted illegal gratification of rs. 500/- as reward for doing official act. the trial court having found the appellant guilty for the said charges sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each for the offence under section 7 of the prevention of corruption act as well as under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the prevention of corruption act. he was further sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 1000/- for an offence under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the prevention of corruption act and in default to undergo for further rigorous imprisonment for six months. both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.2. the complainant mukhlal nonia (p.w.1) working as a loader in kachhi balihari colliery was not paid his wages since july, 1990 as his statement of attendance was not made available to the accounts department by the appellant and whenever he made request to the appellant rajendra prasad singh, posted as time keeper but in the complaint (ext.8) described as hazri babu, for sending his statement of attendance, he asked for rs. 2000/- for sending the statement of attendance of three months. ultimately mukhlal nonia (p.w.1) on 1.11.1990 made a complaint in writing (ext.8) to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2006(3)JCR187(Jhr)]
..... 458085 ex-silo man, co & bpp department, sail/bokaro steel plant was terminated on the grounds of unauthorized absence for the period from june 28, 1982 to august, 29, 1982, under clause 20 (xi) of the standing orders w.e.f. ..... 458085, ex-silo man, co & bpp department is now to be reinstated along with consequential benefits, according to the award w.e.f. ..... 458085, ex-silo man. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2005(4)JCR163(Jhr)]
orderm.y. eqbal, j.1. in all these writ petitions since common question of law and facts are involved, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. the writ petitioners have prayed for quashing the order as contained in letter no. 729/2005 dated 12.5.2005 whereby the commissioner of excise, govt. of jharkhand invited six persons for negotiation for the purpose of allotting tender for wholesale supply of country made liquor.3. the facts which are relevant for the purpose of the instant writ petitions are that a tender was issued and published in the newspaper dated 17.1.2005 inviting tender for the wholesale supply of country liquor in the state of jharkhand for the period 18th march 2005 to 31st march 2008. the petitioners, alongwith others, participated in the tender process by submitting tender in the prescribed manner for different districts. it is worth to mention here that grants in respect of wholesale supply of liquor was also proposed to be made in pursuance of the said notification dated 21.5.2004.4. petitioners' case is that it was granted a licence in retail sale of foreign liquor for one district for the period july, 2005 to march, 2007. it is alleged that when settlement in pursuance of aforementioned notification could not be materialized, the commissioner of excise proposed an amendment in clause 14 (kha) of the said notification and amendment was made vide notification dated 21.5.2004 and, thereafter the excise commissioner issued .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi. ----- w. p. (cr.) no. 133 of 2015 ---- 1. santosh kumar bhuwania 2. om prakash bhuwania 3. shakuntala bhuwania 4. m/s anirox pigments limited . . . petitioners. versus 1. state of jharkhand 2. krishna kumar dokania @ kanhaiya. . respondents. ----- coram : hon'ble mr. justice prashant kumar ----- for the petitioners : m/s. r.s.mazumdar,sr.advocate and a.k.pathak for the state : mr. j.rahman, jc to gp-iii for the respondent : mr. sachin kumar reserved on 17.09.2015 delivered on 07 /12 /2015 ----- prashant kumar,j.this writ application has been filed for quashing the first information report of govindpur p.s.case no. 112 of 2015, corresponding to g. r. no. 1317/2015 registered under sections 420, 406 and 120(b) of the indian penal code.2. it appears that the complainant/respondent no.2 filed a complaint in the court of judicial magistrate, dhanbad vide c.p. case no. 336/2015. the said complaint case sent to the govindpur police station for institution of case and investigation under section 156(3) cr. p.c. accordingly, govindpur p.s. case no. 112/2015 instituted. in the said complaint petition, respondent no.2 alleged that petitioners are directors and promoters of m/s anirox pigments limited and they are related to the complainant ( respondent no.2). it is also stated that petitioner no.1 and 2 are also directors of m/s elementies coke private limited. it is alleged that in the year 2004-05, petitioners invited respondent no.2 and his .....
Tag this Judgment!