Uttaranchal Court April 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ram Singh Vishnoi S/O Shri Ram Chandra at Present Ganna Supervisor in ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-07-2010
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 Case No. 120 of 2004 State v. Ram Singh Vishnoi and Ors. relating to offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473 and 120B I.P.C., pending in the court of Civil Judge, Jr. Div./Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit on record.3. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.09.1991, a First Information Report (annexure-1) was lodged by Chief Cane Officer of Kisan Co-operative Sugar Mill, Nadehi, against the three accused namely Dharamveer, Vinod Kumar (resident of Meerpur), and Vinod Kumar (resident of Malakpur), in respect of offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C., which pertains to fabrication and forgery of cane slips, relating to payment of cane price to cane growers. After...
Girish Chandra Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-07-2010
V.K. Bist, J.1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 08.10.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Champawat and the order dated 23.06.2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sri Poornagiri, Tanakpur. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive measures and not to evict the petitioner from the shop in question. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish the construction set up by the petitioner on the land in dispute.2. Brief facts of the case, interalia, are that a large number of persons, including the petitioner, have set up and constructed wooden shops and tin shades by the side of the road heading to the temple of goddess Poornagiri from Thuligarh to Poornagiri temple situated at Tuniyas in Tehsil and District Champawat. As many as 40 to 50 wooden shops and tin shades have been construct...
Smt. Suman W/O Shri Dheer Singh and Vijay Pal S/O Shri Mangey Ram Vs. ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-07-2010
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This is recall/restoration application MCRC No. 191 of 2010, moved on behalf of the petitioners for restoration of criminal misc. application (C-482) No. 287 of 2003, which was dismissed for non prosecution on 25.02.2010.2. Heard and perused the affidavit, filed with the application.3. In view of the principle of law laid down in Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. 2007 AIR SCW 1971, and considering the explanation, given in the affidavit, filed with the restoration application, the restoration application is allowed on the condition that the parties shall argue the petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), today itself. The order dated 25.02.2010, is recalled accordingly and heard learned Counsel for the parties on the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.4. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No. 2455 of 2003, Sta...
Bhupendra Kumar Rajpoot Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-07-2010
V.K. Bist, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. Learned Counsel for the parties conceded that the present writ petition may be decided at the admission stage.3. Present petition is directed against the order dated 05.03.2010 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer/ City Magistrate, Haridwar/respondent No. 1 (for brevity the R.C. & E.O.) in the case No. 12 of 2008 under Section 16(1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (for short the 'Act') by which the R.C. & E.O. has declared the disputed accommodation as vacant and invited applications for allotment.4. Brief facts, as alleged in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is residing in a part portion of a big building known as Ganga Mandir Patnawala, Haridwar in the capacity and status of a tenant. In the assessment list of Nagar Palika in the column of landlord there consist the names of Rajeshwar Prasad @ Swami Raghuwar Das, Tarkeshwar Prasad, Rameshwar Prasad, Dev Narayan Prasad, Satya Naraya...
State Vs. Paramjeet Singh and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-07-2010
Nirmal Yadav, J.1. Accused respondents Paramjeet Singh, Ramesh, Khalil and Bhola stood trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for committing the murder of Manohar Lal and his wife Hardeep Kaur at midnight intervening 25th and 26th of May 1995. Accused Birsa Singh was charged for the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC. Accused Paramjeet Singh and Ramesh were also charged under Section 25 of Arms Act. The trial court, after taking into consideration the facts and evidence, acquitted all the accused for the charges framed against them. The State has challenged the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court.2. The facts, in brief, are that on 25.05.1995 Manohar Lal (deceased) and his wife Hardeep Kaur (deceased) were sleeping in the courtyard of their farm house while PW3 Janak Kapoor, who is resident of Indore and is son of Hardeep Kaur's brother, was sleeping inside the room adjoining the courtyard. He had come to visit her Bhuaa on that ...
Beni Prasad Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-07-2010
V.K. Bist, J.1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 22.07.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Champawat and the order dated 28.05.2007 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sri Poornagiri, Tanakpur. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive measures and not to evict the petitioner from the shop in question. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish the construction set up by the petitioner on the land in dispute.2. Brief facts of the case, interalia, are that a large number of persons, including the petitioner, have set up and constructed wooden shops and tin shades by the side of the road heading to the temple of goddess Poornagiri from Thuligarh to Poornagiri temple situated at Tuniyas in Tehsil and District Champawat. As many as 40 to 50 wooden shops and tin shades have been construct...
Shri Manoram Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Om Prakash Vs. State of Uttaranchal ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-07-2010
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 charge-sheet dated 02.11.2000, relating to offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 120B I.P.C. and one punishable under Section 13(1)(c)(d) and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending in the court of Civil Judge, Jr. Div./Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit on record.3. Brief facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged by Chief Cane Officer of Kisan Co-operative Sugar Mill, Nadehi, against three persons namely Dharamveer, Vinod Kumar (resident of Meerpur) and Vinod Kumar (resident of Malakpur), in respect of offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. It is complained in the First Information Report that large number of forged cane slips were found to ...
Mathura Datt Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-07-2010
V.K. Bist, J.1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 17.08.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Champawat and the order dated 13.08.2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sri Poornagiri, Tanakpur. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive measures and not to evict the petitioner from the shop in question. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish the construction set up by the petitioner on the land in dispute.2. Brief facts of the case, interalia, are that a large number of persons, including the petitioner, have set up and constructed wooden shops and tin shades by the side of the road heading to the temple of goddess Poornagiri from Thuligarh to Poornagiri temple situated at Tuniyas in Tehsil and District Champawat. As many as 40 to 50 wooden shops and tin shades have been construct...
Kishnanand Pandey Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-07-2010
V.K. Bist, J.1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 04.08.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Champawat and the order dated 05.08.2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sri Poornagiri, Tanakpur. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive measures and not to evict the petitioner from the shop in question. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish the construction set up by the petitioner on the land in dispute.2. Brief facts of the case, interalia, are that a large number of persons, including the petitioner, have set up and constructed wooden shops and tin shades by the side of the road heading to the temple of goddess Poornagiri from Thuligarh to Poornagiri temple situated at Tuniyas in Tehsil and District Champawat. As many as 40 to 50 wooden shops and tin shades have been construct...
Rajiv Lochan Diwedi and Sanjay Diwedi and anr. Vs. State of U.P. (Now ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
B.C. Kandpal, J.1. These two appeals, under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), have been preferred against the judgments and orders dated 21.10.1997, passed by learned Sessions, Pithoragarh, in Sessions Trial No. 36 of 1995 and Sessions Trial No. 21 of 1995 whereby accused/appellant, namely, Rajiv Lochan Diwedi has been convicted under Sections 304B r/w 34 of I.P.C., 498A of I.P.C. and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for two years and simple imprisonment of six months respectively and accused/appellants, namely, Sanjay Diwedi and Ramanlata have been convicted under Sections 304B, 498A of I.P.C. and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for two years and simple imprisonment for six months respectively. Both the cases have been decided by a common judgment, by the trial court.2. Prosecution story in br...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »