Court : Uttaranchal
u.c. dhyani, j. (oral) 1. informant bhuvnesh kumar wrote a complaint to inspector incharge, ps kotwali jaspur, on 10th may, 2011, enumerating the facts contained therein that on 05.05.2011, co-villager sunil kumar alias sonu s/o bhagat ram kidnapped his brother chandrabhans daughter menka alias neha, aged 14 years. bhuvnesh kumar stated that he belonged to diewala. he has been searching for the missing girl neha, since morning of 08.05.2011. the missing girl was seen in the company of mulakhraj and dharmveer by the villagers on 08.05.2011, at about 5:00 p.m. 2. chik fir was lodged in ps jaspur, on 10th may, 2011, at 7:30 a.m. the same was registered as case crime no. 62 of 2012, under sections 363 and 366a ipc. after the investigation, charge sheet against accused-appellant sunil kumar was submitted for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366a and 376 ipc in the court of magistrate. the case was committed to the court of sessions. 3. when the trial began and prosecution opened its case, charge in respect of selfsame offences was framed against accused sunil kumar alias sonu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. nine witnesses, namely, pw 1 km. neha, pw 2 bhuvnesh, pw 3 chandra bhan, pw 4 mulakhraj, pw 5 dr. archana chauhan, pw 6 si revti nandan datt, pw 7 dr. t.k.pant, pw 8 aakesh kumar and pw 9 ssi dhirendra kumar were examined on behalf of the prosecution. incriminating evidence was put to the accused under section 313 cr.p.c., in which he said that he .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
barin ghosh, c.j. (oral) 1. in the instant case, appellant no. 1 is the widow of pradeep singh bhandari and appellant no. 2 is the son of pradeep singh bhandari. pradeep singh bhandari was the son of g.s. bhandari. g.s. bhandari predeceased his wife smt. durga devi bhandari. after the death of smt. durga devi bhandari, respondent no. 3, the daughter of g.s. bhandari, purported to present a will, allegedly executed by smt. durga devi bhandari, for registration before respondent no. 2, sub-registrar (second), haldwani. respondent no. 2 has registered the said will. challenging the said registration, a writ petition was filed. in that, amongst others, it was contended that, in terms of the provisions of section 169 of the uttar pradesh zamindari abolition and land reforms act, 1950, the subject will was required to be registered by the testator herself, inasmuch as, the will dealt with bhumidhari right of the testator. the learned judge, who dealt with the writ petition, did not consider the said contention on the part of the appellant. 2. we feel that the question, whether, by the will, bhumidhari right has been transferred or not, has not yet cropped up. the same will crop up only when, on the strength of the will, the alleged beneficiary thereunder will seek a direction for transfer of the bhumidhari right of the testator in her favour. we have not gone into the question at this stage, whether, by reason of section 169 of the uttar pradesh zamindari abolition and land reforms .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
present petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.11.2011 passed by the principal judge, family court, dehradun in suit no.238 of 2011 vineet kumar jain vs. archana garg pending before the court of principal judge, family court, dehradun directing the petitioner to serve the summons on witnesses by dasti process. (b) issue a writ, order or direction, directing to allow application no.161 c of the petitioner and principal judge, family court, dehradun be directed to summon witnesses sri s.k. nandal and smt. kirti jain through court, in suit no.238 of 2008 vineet kumar jain vs. archana garg . (c) issue any other order or direction, which this honble high court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (d) to award cost of the petition to the petitioner. 2. brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that on 21.05.2008 respondent filed petition under section 13 and 10 of the hindu marriage act before the principal judge, family court, dehradun, which was registered as original suit no.238 of 2008 vineet kumar jain vs. smt. archana garg . petitioner appeared before the family court, dehradun and filed her written statement and contended that petition filed by the respondent was misuse of process of law. on 06.01.2011, issues were framed in the aforesaid suit and thereafter, case was fixed for respondents .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
barin ghosh, c.j. by the judgment dated 24th october, 2007, challenged in these appeals and in the revision, amarmani tripathi (hereinafter referred to as a1), madhumani tripathi (hereinafter referred to as a2), rohit chaturvedi (hereinafter referred to as a3) and santosh kumar rai (hereinafter referred to as a4) have been convicted and sentenced, and prakash chandra pandey (hereinafter referred to as a5) has been acquitted, by the special judge / sessions judge, dehradun. 2. a1, a2, a3, a4 and a5, and also sri yagya narayan dixit (hereinafter referred to as the deceased accused, in short da), who died in course of trial, were charged for various offences punishable under the indian penal code (ipc) in connection with murder of madhumita shukla (victim). 3. a1 was charged under section 201 of ipc on the ground that he tried to destroy the evidence of murder by trying to destroy the foetus of the victim. a1 was also charged under section 342 of ipc for wrongfully confining rishi khare (pw58) on 10th may, 2003 at the residence of a1 situate at c-2, lawrence terrace, hazratganj, lucknow, with active connivance of da. a1 was further charged under section 506 of ipc for threatening pw58 with dire consequences, with active connivance of da, on 10th may, 2003 at the afore-mentioned residence of a1 for not supporting wedding of the victim with anuj mishra (pw60). 4. a1, a2 and a3 were charged under section 120b, read with section 302 of ipc, for entering into criminal conspiracy .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
prafulla c. pant, j. this appeal, preferred under section 374 of code of criminal procedure, 1973 (for short cr.p.c.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.08.2000, passed by special judge, anti corruption, dehradun, in c.b.i. case no. 4 of 1995, whereby said court has convicted accused/appellant v.n. singh under section 7 and under section 13 (2) read with section 13(1)(d) of prevention of corruption act, 1988 (for short p.c. act). the accused v.n. singh has been sentenced by the trial court to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of rs.2,500/ under section 7 and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of rs.7,500/ under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of p.c. act, 1988. 2. heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. 3. brief facts, of the case, are that accused/ appellant v.n. singh was dy. general manager (electrical) with tehri hydro development corporation, bhagirathpuram, new tehri (for short t.h.d.c.). m/s manoj electric works, meerut, of which p.w.1 samay singh saini was the partner, was given contract no. co/rksh/el loa/035 relating to high tension electrification at baurari, new tehri, and contract no. loa 036 for execution of agreement for work of electrification of group housing for civic centre at baurari by t.h.d.c. p.w.1 samay singh gave complaint (ex. a5) to central bureau of investigation (for short c.b.i.) on 18.06.1994, complaining that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
b.c. kandpal, president (oral): 1. this is insurers appeal under section 15 of the consumer protection act, 1986 against the order dated 16.02.2010 passed by the district forum, haridwar in consumer complaint no. 358 of 2007. by the order impugned, the district forum has ex-parte allowed the consumer complaint against the appellant opposite party no. 7 and directed the appellant to pay the balance amount to respondent no. 1 complainant and also to pay damages of rs. 3,000/-, within a month from the date of the order. 2. briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that sh. mukeshwar dutt sharma, the husband of the complainant had died on 17.06.2004 on account of electric shock. the husband of the complainant was under the employment of opposite party no. 4 state bank of india, meerut. the deceased husband of the complainant had taken housing loan from opposite party no. 1 state bank of india, roorkee. it is alleged that at the time of death of the deceased husband of the complainant, there were dues of rs. 4,77,820/- in the housing loan account. the complainant gave intimation of death of her husband to the opposite party nos. 1 to 5. it is alleged that the husband of the complainant was insured under group personal accident insurance policy, but the claim lodged by the complainant was repudiated by the insurance company. after deducting the loan amount of rs. 5,82,015/-, the amount of rs. 2,35,831/- was credited in the account of .....
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 being decided by this common judgment and order.3. in brief, the prosecution case is that on 4.2.1991 at 12.10 pm, sadhu ram lodged an fir ex. ka-1 with ps ranipur with the averments that in the night of 3/4.2.1991, his tractor mahindra b275 was stolen from his house. at that time, he along with his family was sleeping inside the house and his father kabul singh was sleeping in the courtyard. when his father got up at 3 am for the natural call then he saw that the said tractor was not there. then .....
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 have obstructed the road by constructing a wall and by the illegal possession over the govt. land they have planted the flowers and the crops on the abovesaid land. on 6.7.2001 in the presence of panches and the complainant and the revisionist, the way was opened. this public way passes through the govt. land. thereafter the revisionists have further closed the abovesaid public way and with the help of the ladies of their family, they abused the complainant and threatened them for their life. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
1. these two petitions have arisen out of a common summoning order and the dispute to be decided in both of them is also same, hence both the petitions are being decided by this common judgment and order.2. both these criminal applications, preferred u/s 482 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as cr.p.c.), are directed for quashing the summoning order dated 3.5.2005 and to quash the entire proceedings of criminal case no.185 of 2005, state v. yogesh gupta & others u/s 406/420 ipc pending before j.m. cbi, dehradun3. heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.4. in brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.2 was engaged in the work of data conversion in computers in the name of reward computers from her own house. in august 2003 petitioner retd. col. yogesh gupta met her and induced to enter into a partnership with him so as to earn huge profits. on 25.8.2003 a deed of partnership was prepared in which she also made signatures and the ratio of profit was agreed at 60:40 between the parties and a joint bank account was also to be opened and as such the name of firm was kept as m.s. reward computers. the petitioner yogesh gupta also got registered the said firm on 30.8.2003 at registrar firms, uttaranchal and the partnership deed was notarized on 28.8.2003. since the intention of petitioner yogesh gupta was not clean since beginning, hence he instead of opening the joint account, proposed the bank account of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
1. these two petitions have arisen out of a common summoning order and the dispute to be decided in both of them is also same, hence both the petitions are being decided by this common judgment and order.2. both these criminal applications, preferred u/s 482 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as cr.p.c.), are directed for quashing the summoning order dated 3.5.2005 and to quash the entire proceedings of criminal case no.185 of 2005, state v. yogesh gupta & others u/s 406/420 ipc pending before j.m. cbi, dehradun3. heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.4. in brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.2 was engaged in the work of data conversion in computers in the name of reward computers from her own house. in august 2003 petitioner retd. col. yogesh gupta met her and induced to enter into a partnership with him so as to earn huge profits. on 25.8.2003 a deed of partnership was prepared in which she also made signatures and the ratio of profit was agreed at 60:40 between the parties and a joint bank account was also to be opened and as such the name of firm was kept as m.s. reward computers. the petitioner yogesh gupta also got registered the said firm on 30.8.2003 at registrar firms, uttaranchal and the partnership deed was notarized on 28.8.2003. since the intention of petitioner yogesh gupta was not clean since beginning, hence he instead of opening the joint account, proposed the bank account of .....
Tag this Judgment!