Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-31-2014
Crl. Appeal Nos. D-783-DB of 2009 and other cases -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :31. 1.2014. Crl. Appeal No.D-783-DB of 2009 Surjit Singh and others ........ Appellants Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent Crl. Appeal No.D-790-DB of 2009 Kartar Singh and others ........ Appellants Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent Crl. Appeal No.D-815-DB of 2009 Gurpal Singh @ Hargopal Singh ........ Appellant Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent Crl. Appeal No.D-931-DB of 2009 Labh Singh and others ...... Appellants Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH Present:- Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate, with, Mr. Simranjeet Singh, Advocate, for the appellants, in CRA No.D-783-DB of 2009. Mr. D.S. Brar, Advocate, for the appellants, in CRA No.D-790-DB of 2009. Sharma Sanjiv Kumar 2014.02.20 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal Nos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-25-2014
Crl. Misc. No.M-4405 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-4405 of 2014 Date of Decision: 25.07.2014 Satinder Singh Sandhu ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:-Mr.Subash Chand, Advocate for Mr.Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Virk, A.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. ***** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. Petitioner-Satinder Singh Sandhu has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition for quashing of FIR No.262 dated 11.11.2010 registered under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 IPC at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana City along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are husband and wife and had solemnized their marriage on 13.07.2008. Thereafter, their marriage was not smooth and relations between them became strained. N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-08-2014
Crl. Misc. No.M-35991 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-35991 of 2013 Date of Decision:08. 08.2014 Amritpal Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. B.S. Dandiwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Parupkar Singh Ghuman, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. ***** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.Petitioners-Amritpal Singh, Iqbal Singh, Ujagar Singh, Basant Kaur and Avtar Singh have approached this Court by way of filing the present petition for quashing of FIR No.42 dated 28.05.2013 registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 148, 120-B IPC read with Section 149, IPC, at Police Station Sadar Budlada, District Mansa along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the dispute between the parties has been settled by wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-17-2014
CRM M31513of 2012 and connected matter 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Date of decision:17. 02.2014 1. CRM M31513of 2012 Sanju Bala and another ..........Petitioners Versus Poonam Bala and another .........Respondents 2. CRM M8850of 2013 Anju Bala and another ........ Petitioners Versus Poonam Bala and another .......Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal -.- Present: Mr. H S Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioners (CRM M31513of 2012) None for the petitioners (CRM M8850of 2013 ) Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Amarinder Singh Klar, AAG, Punjab for the respondent State -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Rekha Mittal, J.By way of this order, I shall dispose of CRM M31513of 2012 and CRM M8850of 2013, as these are the offshoot of the same proceedings involving identical questions of law an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-13-2014
Criminal Appeal No.378-DB-2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.378-DB-2009 Date of decision:13.02.2014 Vijay @ Pappu ... Appellant Versus State of Haryana .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH Present: Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate and Mr. Vikas Lochab (Legal Aid Counsel) for the appellant. Mr. Baldev Singh, Addl. A.G. Haryana. RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(Oral) 1. The appellant-Vijay Pal @ Pappu son of Ram Chander has filed this appeal challenging judgment dated 16.3.2009 and order dated 17.3.2009 convicting him for an offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of deposit of fine to undergo imprisonment for six months.2. The appellant has been arraigned for the murder of one Poonam, who was allegedly living with him. Gurvinder Singh son of Didar Thakral Rajeev 2014.03.05 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and inte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-25-2014
Crl. Misc. No.M-8757 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-8757 of 2014 Date of Decision: 25.07.2014 Gulshan Kumar and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr.Viney Saini, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.Pradeep Virk, D.A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State. Mr.Ankit Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. PetitioneRs.namely Gulshan Kumar, Kundal Lal, Tarun Kumar and Tamanna are accused in case FIR No.64 dated 14.02.2011 registered under Sections 498-A/506/323 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Ambala City. Petitioner no.1 is husband, petitioner No.2 is father-in-law, petitioner No.3 is brother-in-law (jeth) and petitioner No.4 is sister-in-law (jethani) of the complainant-respondent No.2. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 25.11.2000. However, out of the said wedlock, two childr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-08-2014
Crl. Misc. No.M-27584 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-27584 of 2013 Date of Decision:08. 08.2014 Parminderjit Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Ish Puneet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pradeep Virk, D.A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State. Mr. Chander Shekhar Singhal, Advocate for respondent No.4. ***** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.Petitioners-Parminderjit Singh, Gurjit Singh and Ranjit Kaur have approached this Court by way of filing the present petition for quashing of FIR No.143 dated 10.05.2011 registered under Sections 498- A, 323, 406 and 506 IPC at Police Station Baldev Nagar, Ambala City, District Ambala along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 got married to complainant/respondent No.4 on 03.12.2009 and thereafter,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-08-2014
CRR-3948-2013 1 IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 08.05.2014 1. CRR-3948-2013 Constable Bohar Singh ..Petitioner Versus Shamsher Singh and another ..Respondents 2. CRR-72-2014 Ajaib Singh ..Petitioner Versus Shamsher Singh and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner(in both petitions).Mr.R.K.Girdhar, Advocate for respondent No.1(in both petitions) Mr.Neeraj Sharma, AAG, Punjab(in both petitions) REKHA MITTAL, J.(ORAL) By way of this order, I shall dispose of CRR-3948-2013 Bohar Singh versus Shamsher Singh and another. and CRR-72-2014 Ajaib Singh versus Shamsher Singh and another. as these have arisen out of the same judgment dated 03.12.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sr.Muktsar Sahib and identical questions of law and facts being involved for adjudication. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CRR-3948- Davinder Kumar 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-08-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7380 of 2012(O&M) Date of decision:08.08.2014 Raj Kumari wife of Shri Om Parkash, House No.387, Sector 14, Sonepat (Haryana). ... Petitioner versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Panipat Divisional Office, Panipat Marketing Complex, Village Baholi, Post Office Panipat Refinery, District Panipat, through its Managing Director, and others. .... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate, for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. Yes.2. To be referred to the reporters or not ?. Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?. Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioner seeks for quashing of letter of intent and allotment of retail outlet dealership for the location at Village Karhans, District...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-15-2014
FAO-4178-2012 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4178-2012 (O&M) Date of decision:15. 1.2014 Manju Devi and others ...Appellants Versus Narender and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Kanhiya Lal, Advocate for Mr.Arun Bansal, Advocate for the appellants Mr.Akashdeep Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr.RC Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.3- Insurance Company **** Jitendra Chauhan, J.CM-17852-CII-2012 Despite sufficient opportunity, no reply has been filed by the respondents. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 103 days in re-filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. FAO-4178-2012 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellants, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short 'the Shanker Gauri 2014.01.16 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this do...
Tag this Judgment!