Court : Uttaranchal
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(for short Cr.P.C), the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal complaint case No. 4336 of 2007 Rampal Singh v. Deep Shikha relating to offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Police Station Kashipur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit.3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 Rampal Singh filed criminal complaint case No. 4396 of 2007 with the allegation that as a part of consideration of the property sought to be transferred, complainant/petitioner Deepshikha gave a cheque No. 227071 of Kashipur Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. for an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/-, but when the same was presented by the complainant, the bankers dishonoured the cheque on the ground of insufficient funds. On ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Nirmal Yadav, J.1. This Government appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment and order dated 29.08.1991 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in Sessions Trial No. 182 of 1989 whereby accused-respondents Iqbal Singh, Guru Bachan Singh and Sukhbinder Pal Singh alias Sukhpal Singh have been acquitted of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short I.P.C.).2. The facts, in brief, are that on 04.05.1988 at about 8:00 p.m. Baldev Singh alongwith his brother Balbir Singh and Gurudev Singh had gone to Sanjay Nagar Market for making some purchases. Meanwhile accused Iqbal Singh armed with pistol, Guru Bachan Singh and Sukhbinder Pal Singh alias Sukhpal Singh (hereinafter referred to as Sukhpal Singh) armed with double barrel gun came and started abusing Baldev Singh. The accused also stated that why he was not allowing them to draw water from Kulaba. Baldev Singh objected and asked them to behave themselves. Meanw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Nirmal Yadav, J.1. Vide order dated 09.02.2010 passed by this Court, appeal filed on behalf of Ram Dayal has already abated, as Ram Dayal died on 05.09.1999. The appeal is proceeded only on behalf of appellant No. 2 Dotha Devi.2. Accused Ram Dayal and Dotha Devi stood trial for committing murder of Nand Lal, son of Shyam Singh and nephew of Ram Dayal.3. The criminal law was set in motion on application (Exhibit Ka 2) submitted by Shyam Singh to Madan Lal Nautiyal, Naib Tehsilder, Narendra Nagar. On the basis of the said application chick First Information Report (Exhibit Ka 3) was recorded on 17.06.1993 at 8.00 p.m. at Patwari Circle Chaka. The complainant stated that he was working as Goldsmith at Satyon. On 17.06.1993, Ashok and Kishori, resident of village Lawa came to him at Satyon in a taxi and informed him about the murder of his son Nand Lal having been committed by accused Ram Dayal (since deceased) and his wife Dotha Devi. On receiving the information, he went to his house at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th of October 2001, passed by the Sessions Judge, Almora, in Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 1998, whereby said court has affirmed the conviction and sentence recorded against the revisionist Anil Kumar by the trial court (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora), in Criminal Case No. 855 of 1994, relating to offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short P.F.A. Act).2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record.3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant P.W. 1 Hem Chandra Joshi, Food Inspector, Nagar Palika Parishad, Almora, took sample of 'BESAN KA LADDU' from the shop of revisionist Anil Kumar, situated in Thana Bazar, Almora, on 24.02.1994. He got served notice in Form No. VI (Ext. A -1) to the revisionist before taking sample in the presence of witness Mohan Singh. The Food Inspector purchased 600 gms. of 'BESAN KA LADDU'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
B.C. Kandpal, J.1. This petition, Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the order dated 29-5-2005, passed by 2nd Judicial Magistrate Dehradun in Complaint Case No. 14 of 2004, Dinesh Jain v. Keshi Developers and Ors. whereby the petitioners have been summoned to face trial Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. They further prayed for quashing of the proceeding of the aforesaid Complaint Case.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the complainant/respondent No. 3, filed a complaint case against the petitioners with the allegations that he paid Rs. 40,00,000/- to the petitioners/accused for purchase of land through cheques. The accused encashed the cheques issued by him but did not register the land in his name and promised to return the money to him. The accused returned him Rs. 15,00,000/- and for remaining amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- issued cheques No. 366073 dated 10-3-2004, for Rs. 5,00,000/-, No. 366074 dated 11-3-2004, for Rs. 5,00,000/-, N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Dharam Veer, J.1. This appeal, preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.5.1997 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 155/1995 State v. Mukesh Dhyani, whereby the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant/accused Mukesh Dhyani under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) and sentenced him to undergo five years' R.I. under Section 376(1) IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, five years' R.I. under Section 366 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and two years' R.I. under Section 363 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. So far as the default in payment of fine is concerned, the accused in default of payment of fine Under Section 376 IPC, was directed to further undergo an imprisonment of six month; in default of payment of fine Under Section 366 IPC, he was dire...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Nirmal Yadav, J.1. Appellant Vijendra Singh along with his father Gyan Chand, mother Gaurdei and Rajendra Singh stood trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). The trial court convicted appellant Vijendra Singh for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. However, Gyan Chand, Gaurdei and Rajendra Singh were acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.2. Madan Singh father of deceased submitted an application (exhibit ka 1) to SO, Police Station - Kotwali Uttarkashi, on 02.08.1994 stating that accused Vijendra Singh had taken away his daughter Mandei in the month of November, 1993 and thereafter, performed court marriage with her. It is submitted that marriage could not be performed as both Vijendra Singh and Mandei belong to the same community. However, after the marriage Vijendra Singh and family members of Vijendra Singh started ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. Both these revisions are directed against the same judgment or order dated 14.05.2008, passed in case No. 32 of 2007, by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, whereby said court has directed that Rajesh Upadhyay (husband) to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month to each one of the four namely Mithlesh Upadhyay (wife) Km. Rimi (daughter), Rakshita (daughter) and master Shardul (son) under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record.3. Brief facts of the case are that Rajesh Upadhyay got married to Mithlesh on 2.10.1989. Out of the wedlock three children namely Rimi, Rakshita and shardul were born. The wife and the three children moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. alleging that Rajesh Upadhyay having means, has neglected to maintain them, and they are unable to maintain themselves. It is pleaded by them that Rajesh Upadhyay has earning of Rs. 50,000/- per month as salary from Oil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
B.C. Kandpal, J.1. This Government Appeal preferred by the State under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.8.1998 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Roorkee, Haridwar, in Sessions Trial No. 295/1994 State v. Shamshad and others, whereby accused-respondents have been acquitted of the charge of offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C.2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 25.2.1994 at 1.30 p.m., written report (Ext.Ka.1) was lodged by complainant Khalil (PW-1) at P.S. Laksar with the averments that his nephew Ishhaq son of Ibrahim @ Abra had gone to plough the field. In the morning, at about 10.30 a.m. Shamshad @ Chhota, Ibad Ali and Visarat armed with country-made pistols came in the field and told to his brother that he is involved in several litigation against them, today they will teach a lesson to him. Thereafter, the three accused fired on his nephew with country-made pistols. His nephew ran away in order to save his life ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Dharam Veer, J.1. This appeal, preferred by the appellant Under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC), is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.12.1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Nainital in Sessions Trial No. 161 of 1995, State of UP v. Babu and Ors., whereby learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant/accused Babu under Section 354 and 325 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months under Section 354 IPC and R.I. for two years along with fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 325 IPC and in case of default, he was directed to undergo three months' additional imprisonment. However, co-accused Ashok, Gyanchand and Ramesh Chand were acquitted of the charges levelled against them under Section 147 and 325/149 IPC. Appellant accused Babu was also acquitted of the charge levelled against him under Section 147 IPC. Another co-accused Dalpat died during the pendency of trial and...
Tag this Judgment!