Court : Uttaranchal
1. heard mr. h.c. pathak and mrs. neetu singh, advocate for the applicant, mr. amit bhatt, addl. ga for the state and mr. subhash tyagi bhardwaj, advocate for the complainant. in brief, the prosecution case is that madan pal singh lodged a first information report against the applicant and co- accused alleging that the marriage of his daughter savita was solemnized with the applicant on 5.5.2003. in the marriage, he spent about rs.3.00 lacs cash and also gave sufficient dowry, however, in-laws of his daughter were not satisfied with it and they started harassing her physically and mentally for dowry. 2. it is further alleged that after birth of two female children, the in- laws of his daughter increased the torture upon his daughter and on 25.12.2006 for the non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry, the applicant-accused and co-accused beaten his daughter and, thereafter, with intention to kill her, they pushed her from the roof due to which her backbone was got fractured. when the complainant came to know about the said incident, he along with ex-pradhan bhanvar, brother sukhpal and rajendra went to roorkee, on which, the in-law of his daughter tendered apology for their mistakes and assured that they themselves will provide complete treatment to his daughter on their own expenses. 3. for the sake of matrimonial life of his daughter, at that time, the complainant did not take any legal action against the accused persons but after three months, the applicant and co-accused .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
1. heard mr. vinod sharma, advocate for the applicant, mr. nandan arya, aga for the state of uttarakhand/respondent no. 1 and ms. prabha naithani, advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3.2. this application under section 482 of cr.p.c. has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 22.6.2010, whereby the additional judge, family court, rishikesh has directed the applicant to pay a sum of rs. 1,24,200/-, which is for the maintenance of his two minor children.3. the case of the applicant before this court is that the amount has wrongly been calculated. he has given the list of the amount at paragraph -4 of the application, which is the amount paid by him by way of demand drafts to his wife for maintenance of his two minor children. moreover, the amount of rs. 1,700/- (one thousand seven hundred) per month has been reduced to rs. 1,000/- per month for each child. in other words, the applicant has now to give rs. 2,000/- per month and not rs. 3,400/- per month to the children, as it was earlier.4. on 27.8.2010, time was given to respondent nos. 2 and 3, who are represented by ms. prabha naithani, advocate to file their counter affidavit. a counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf in the court today. the same is taken on record. in the counter affidavit, the averments of the applicant have been rebutted and the averments made in paragraph -4 of the application have been denied. learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 states that an amount of rs. 1,24,200/- is .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
1) this appeal, preferred under section 374 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as cr.p.c.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.02.1995, passed by addl. sessions judge, roorkee, in sessions trial no. 106 of 1993, whereby said court has convicted accused / appellants raj kumar and balak ram under section 368 of the indian penal code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as i.p.c.), and sentenced each one of the two to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years, and to pay fine of rs. 500/-. appeal of accused / appellant chandra bhan, due to his death during the pendency of this appeal, stands abated.2) heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record.3) prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24.02.1992, at about 09:15 p.m., p.w. 2 raj kumar (complainant) lodged first information report at police station laksar, stating that his sister uma (p.w. 1) was missing from her house. she was aged 16 years. it is also mentioned in the first information report (ext. a 3) by the complainant that when the inquiries were made, the complainant was told that his sister has been enticed away by accused chandra bhan (since deceased). on the basis of said report, crime no. 47 of 1992 was registered at police station laksar, against accused chandra bhan, in respect of offences punishable under section 363 and 366 of i.p.c. investigation was taken up by sub inspector babu ram. on the next day i.e. 25.02.1992, uma rani (p.w. 1) was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
1. this appeal, preferred under section 374(2) of code of criminal procedure 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as cr.p.c.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.4.1994 passed by additional sessions judge/special judge, anti corruption, dehradun, in cbi case no.6/87, cbi versus k.k. tripathi, whereby the learned additional sessions judge/special judge convicted the appellant-accused under section 161 of the indian penal code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as the ipc) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. the appellant-accused was further convicted u/s 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of prevention of corruption act, 1947 (act ii of 1947) (hereinafter to be referred as act) and was sentenced to one year's r.i. with fine of rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of payment of fine, three months' simple imprisonment was further awarded. all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.3. in brief, the prosecution case is that p.w.1 anil kumar bansal s/o kalu ram bansal lodged a report before superintendent of police, cbi, dehradun on 24.3.1987 stating therein that on 10.2.1987 he had sent an application to s.s.p.o. meerut regarding his recruitment in the post of extra departmental post master, branch post office sathla, district meerut. in this regard, he had met with the appellant-accused k.k. tripathi, ipo (north), who was working under .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
(1) heard learned counsel for the appellants(2) this appeal, preferred under section 5-a(c) of u.p. public service tribunal act, 1976, read with section 19 of the contempt of courts act 1971, is directed against the order dated 21.07.1999 passed by state public service tribunal, indra bhawan, lucknow (for short pst) in contempt petition no. 340 of 1998.(3) heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit.(4) brief facts of the case are that the claim petition no. 269/v/1991 was filed by respondent masad raza zaidi before pst, lucknow, challenging the order dated 02.06.1990 passed against him, removing him from the service. the respondent had further challenged order dated 25.01.1991 passed by the departmental appellate authority whereby the order of punishment stood affirmed. pst lucknow after hearing the parties vide its order dated 23.04.1998 allowed the claim petition and quashed the orders dated 02.06.1990 and 25.01.1991. however, the tribunal made it clear that the employer (present appellant) were at liberty to initiate fresh inquiry as per the rules and pass fresh orders. the respondent no.2 masad raza zaidi filed a contempt petition no. 340 of 1998 before pst, lucknow, complaining that the authority have not complied with the order dated 23.04.1998. the present appellants were impleaded by names as respondents in said contempt petition. they pleaded before the tribunal that they have complied with the order and the respondent no.2 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
1. this appeal, preferred under section 19 of family courts act, 1984, is directed against judgment and order dated 12.11.2008, passed by judge family court, nainital, in suit no. 74 of 2005, whereby said court has allowed the petition under section 13 of hindu marriage act, 1955, and granted the decree of divorce on the petition filed by the present respondent.2. heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record.3. brief facts of the case are that appellant sunita arya got married to respondent surendra dev on 02.05.1999, at bareilly, according to hindu rites. a son (named aman) was born out of the wed-lock on 27.01.2000. present respondent surendra dev filed a petition for divorce alleging that the appellant and her parents used to insist that the present respondent (husband) should live in barelly to which he did not agree. it is further alleged that the appellant used to frequently leave her husband's company to join her parents at bareilly. earlier a petition under section 9 of hindu marriage act, 1955, was filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights, but after the wife joined her, said petition was withdrawn. however, again the appellant left the house of the present respondent and filed the criminal complaint at police station gadarpur, against her husband and in laws relating to offences punishable under section 498a, 323, 506 ipc, and one punishable under section 3/4 of dowry prohibition act, 1961, in the year 2002. it is further .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
1. heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for the respondent.2. this criminal misc. application under section 482 cr.p.c. has been filed by the applicants against the summoning order dated 20.7.2010 which has been issued by the additional judicial magistrate, khatima, district udham singh nagar on a complaint filed by the respondent who is admittedly the wife of applicant no. 1 under section 494/406 i.p.c. the allegations in the complaint are that applicant no. 1 was married to one "priti" and now again he has again married with the complaint/respondent in the lifetime of priti and without the earlier marriage being dissolved. the learned judicial magistrate after proceeding under section 200 read with section 202 of cr.p.c. issued summons to the accused persons/applicants. he also examined the brother of "priti" who has also deposed that his sister has married to applicant no. 1.3. learned counsel for the applicants contends that no offence is made out against the applicants under sections 494/406 i.p.c. if at all any offence is made out that is under section 495 i.p.c. sections 494 and 495 i.p.c. are reproduced below for ready reference."494. marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife. whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : 2006(1)AWC651(UHC); 2006(3)SLJ414(NULL)
prafulla c. pant, j. 1. by means of above three writ petitions, the petitioners who are scale i officers, have challenged the selection process for promotions to scale ii in the alaknanda gramin bank ltd., pauri garhwal, for its various branches in uttaranchal.2. we heard learned counsel for the parties at length.3. the petitioners were appointed in group-a posts of scale i by direct recruitment and were posted in different branches of alaknanda gramin bank. their promotions are governed by regional rural banks (appointment and promotion of officers and other employees) rules, 1998. petitioner in writ petition no. 332 of 2003 has challenged the promotion order dated 30.4.2003 (annexure-8 to said writ petition) whereby shri krishna chand singh, shri sunil mishra and shri sunil dutt bhatt who were junior to him at the time of his appointment in the seniority list. the six petitioners in writ petition no. 602 of 2003, have also challenged the selection process of the promotions to scale-ii by respondent-bank and sought the promotions of respondents no. 3 to 14 in said writ petition, be quashed. according to these petitioners, following number of posts in scale-ii were vacant for promotions in the years 1999 to 2003 :(1) 1999 3 posts(2) 2000 5 posts(3) 2001 nil(4) 2002 4 posts(5) 2003 8 postsrespondents-shri krishna chandra singh bisht, shri sunil kumar mishra and shri sunil dutt bhatt were promoted against the vacancies of the year 1999. respondents--shri girish chandra pant, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : [2005(107)FLR399]
rajesh tandon, j.1. present writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the award dated 2nd july, 1986 passed by the labour court.briefly stated the government of uttar pradesh referred a dispute under section 4-k of the u.p. industrial dispute act. the term of reference was as under:whether the termination of sri basant lal gaur son of sri ram bharose lal sharma, routine grade clerk (on daily wages) from 27.7.1978 by the employer was valid and legal if not, whether the workman is entitled to any reliefthe worrkman in his written statement has alleged that he has worked as a routine grade clerk from 9th september, 1977 to 26th july, 1978 and his services were terminated by an oral order on 27.7.1978. he had worked for 240 days and his termination was illegal on account of the fact that no retrenchment compensation or notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice was given to him.2. the petitioner filed written statement on 13.8.1984, stating therein that the workman was engaged on muster roll with effect from 9.9.1977 and neither continuously worked in the division nor worked for 240 days in a calendar year. on the basis of the telegram of the superintending engineer dated 27.7.1978 the workman's services were dispensed with and no notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice was required to be given to the workman. in paragraph 4 of the written statement it was admitted that the services of basant lal gaur were dispensed with from 27.7.1978. in .....
Tag this Judgment!