Uttaranchal Court August 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.
Neeraj Kumar Singh and Another. Vs. Smt. Ganga Devi.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-30-2010
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 aga...
Gautam ChadhA. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-30-2010
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 ...
C.S. MehtA. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-30-2010
1. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner/applicant has prayed to delete the remarks made against the petitioner by Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in order dated 11.9.2006.2. Heard Sri L.P. Naithani, Senior Advocate with Sri B.S. Negi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Bhatt, Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2.3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the present application has been filed only for the limited purpose of expunging certain remarks/strictures made by learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal against the petitioner, without giving any opportunity of hearing to him, which is against the principle of natural justice. He further argued that the remark of learned Sessions Judge would create a serious consequence on the future career of the petitioner.4. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 11.9.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, ...
Amit S/O Jogaraj. Vs. State of Uttaranchal.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-30-2010
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 com...
Sarvar Khan and ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. These three criminal appeals are directed against the common judgment and order and the incident in all these appeals as well as the evidence is the same, as such all are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. These three appeals, preferred by the appellants u/s 374(2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), are directed against the common judgment and order dated 15.12.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, US Nagar in S.T. No.214 of 2006, State v. Ranjeet Singh @ Raja & others, thereby convicting and sentencing all the appellants/accused us/ 489-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as I.P.C.) and sentencing each of them to ten years' RI with fine of Rs.25,000/- each and in default, the defaulter was directed to undergo further one year's simple imprisonment. Each of the appellants/ accused was further convicted and sentenced u/s 489-C IPC for five years' RI. Both the sentences were directed to run concurr...
Sunita Arya, W/O Surendra Dev. Vs. Surendra Dev S/O Late Shankar Dev.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
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 petitio...
P.P.Pandey, and ors. Vs. State Public Service Tribunal, and anr.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
(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 m...
Dayal Joshi S/O Late Shri Chandramani Joshi. Vs. Smt Usha Joshi W/O Sh ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
(1) This appeal, preferred under section 19 of Family Court Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.06.2010 passed by Judge, Family Court, Nainital, in Suit No. 128 of 2007 whereby said court has dismissed the petition of the appellant, moved under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.(2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.(3) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Dayal Joshi got married to respondent Uma Joshi on 24.04.1992 in Mehat Gaon, District Almora. A female child (named Khusbu) was born out of the wedlock on 31.10.1995. The appellant/husband lives in Udaipur where he is employed with Hindustan Zinc Limited. It appears that after a couple of years of marriage, the parties to matrimony started quarreling and their relations got soured. The husband / appellant filed a divorce petition in the year 2006 alleging that his wife used to quarrel with him and did not pay respect to his parents. He has further alleged t...
Rajnish Kumar, and anr. Vs.State of Uttaranchal and anr.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
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 ...
Sister Superior Clementine. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Another.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
1. This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the proceedings of Crl. Case No.521/97, DFO v. Sister Superior Clementine pending in the court of CJM Dehradun.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.3. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 8.3.1997 the respondent no.2 while on patrolling duty, saw that on the private forest land declared by the Government, without prior permission of the State Government/Forest Department, construction of a building was being done by digging the forest land for non-forest purpose. On being enquired, the labourers working on the site informed that the construction work was being carried out as per the orders of petitioner and they were employed by co-accused Rajiv Malhotra, contractor. It was also stated that for this non-forest work, the accused had not obtained prior sanction from the Government/Forest Dep...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »