Uttaranchal Court September 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.
Narendra Saini and Others Vs. State and Others
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
1. Heard learned counsels for the applicants as well as the learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants challenging the chargesheet and the subsequent summoning order dated 21.9.2002 issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun as well as the proceedings initiated in Criminal Case No. 1994 of 2002 State V/s Narendra Saini and others pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 3. Brief facts of case are that respondent no. 4 who is married to the present applicant no. 1 Narendra Saini, as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies on 27.4.2001. Thereafter, an F.I.R. was lodged by the wife at Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun under Section 406 I.P.C. alleging that her “stridhan” is not being returned to her. Subsequently, an investigation was made and chargesheet was filed by the police in which offence was made out by the police agains...
State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand) Vs. Har Gyan Singh and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
1. This appeal, preferred under section 378 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C)is directed against judgment and order dated 26.02.1998, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (E.C. Act), Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No. 79 of 1994, whereby said court has acquitted the respondents from the charge of offences punishable under section 302, 394 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC). Accused/respondent Hargyan was convicted under section 411 IPC but he was sentenced to imprisonment for a period already undergone during trial. 2. Heard learned counsel for the State, and learned Amicus Curiae for the respondents, and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story in brief is that Chandmal Bhutda (first deceased) and his wife Smt. Surajmal Bhutda (second deceased) used to live in house no. 54D, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. In the servant's quarters, one K.Mani, Tarachand, Shivkant and P.W.1 R. Ganeshan used to live as their tenants. Accused/respondents Hargyan, and one ...
Amar Nath Singh Bisht. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
1. These petitions seek to challenge the legality of the amendment effected to the Uttarakhand Government Servants Seniority Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”), whereby and under, after Rule 8, Rule 8(a) has been inserted. The inserted Rule 8(a) provides three things, namely, (i) that the status of the Government employee, as at 8 th November, 2000, shall remain unaltered and, even if anyone is holding a superior post, on the ground that his seniors are not holding such posts, he shall not be reverted; (ii) a senior shall not be entitled to notional promotion on the ground that his junior is holding a superior post; and (iii) the employees shall be promoted to the superior posts only when they have achieved eligibility to be promoted to superior posts. 2. The petitioners are principally contending that by reason of insertion of Rule 8(a) in the said Rules, the right of the petitioners to be promoted has been interfered with. The petitioners are not contend...
Angrej Singh So. Ajit Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
1. This appeal, preferred by the appellant u/s 374(2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.1.1998 passed by Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in Sessions Trial No.163 of 1997, State v. Angrej Singh, whereby the learned Special Judge/Addl. Sessions Judge convicted the appellant-accused under Sections 376, 366 and 363 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as the IPC) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years u/s 376 IPC, four years R.I. u/s 366 IPC and three years R.I. u/s 363 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. 3. In brief, the prosecution case is that Mahendra Singh lodged a First Information Report at P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar against the appellant-accused stating therein that daughter of the compl...
The Bazpur Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs- (1) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30-7-2010, passed by the respondent No.2, Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, whereby a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner. (2) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 not to give effect to the order dated 30-7-2010, Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. (3) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 not to ask the petitioner to reply the informations sought under Rights to Information Act. 2. The main ground taken by the petitioner in this petition is that the petitioner is a Cooperative Society and is not owned and controlled by the State Government and is not a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of Right to Information Act. In paragraph- 19 of the writ petition it is further averred that the petitioner mill is engaged in doing the busi...
Tejpal So. Ganga Ram Vs. State of Uttarakhand
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
1. Heard Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on 29.3.2010 at 7:10 PM, a First Information Report was lodged against the applicant Tej Pal and co-accused Jamuna Prasad, Bhup Ram and Hori Lal with the allegations that they have caused injuries to Khirendra, Karanpal and Kanta Prasad with knife. This FIR was registered at P.S. Devarniya but as the matter was related to P.S. Kichcha, therefore, it was transferred to P.S. Kiccha and registered as FIR No.65 of 2010 under Sections 147/148/149/308/324/323 of IPC. He further submitted that there is a cross version also in which the FIR was lodged by Jamuna Prasad at Police Station Kichcha on 30.3.2010 at 9:10 AM against Karan Pal, Khilendra, Virendra and Kanta Prasad with the allegations that on 29.3.2010 Karanpal, Khirendra, Virendra and Kanta Prasad caused injuries to Prempal, Pintu and Bhupal. He further submitted that these are the cross cas...
Raj Kumar Tewari Vs. State of Uttarakand and Others.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 & 2. 2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant challenging the summoning order dated 3.7.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet in Criminal Complaint Cse No. 361 of 2008 P.L. Tamta v. Rajkumar, whereby cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 420/471 I.P.C. against the present applicant. 3. This case appears to have a chequered history. The applicant procured an appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules by misrepresentation and fraud by showing that he is the son of one Smt. Prema Tewari - the deceased, who died in harness as Assistant Teacher in a primary school, whereas from the records which are there before this Court earlier, more particularly the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, which was passed in a writ petition filed by the present applicant bei...
Smt. Hema Agarwal Vs. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
1. Heard Shri Narayan Singh Negi, the learned counsel for the revisionist/defendant and Shri Piyush Garg, the learned counsel for the caveator/plaintiff. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the revision is being decided at the admission stage finally since no disputed questions of fact are involved. The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction against the opposite party restraining her from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff on the property in question. The defendant resisted the suit and filed his written statement. It has also come on record that the affidavit of the plaintiff in chief has already been filed and the opportunity to cross examine the plaintiff has been closed. At this stage, the defendant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. for amendment of her written statement contending that the property in question was purchased from the funds of her husband and that the suit was barred by the provision of...
Manoj Kumar Ghildiyal Vs. State
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
1. Heard Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate for the revisionist and Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Government Advocate for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order 28.2.2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1999, by which the judgment and order of the trial Court convicting the accused/revisionist under Section 279/304-A I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 279 I.P. and in default of payment of fine further undergo simple imprisonment of one month and a sentence of one year R.I. under Section 304-A and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment of one month, has been upheld. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist was driving a Jeep No. UP 09-0216 from Chinyalisaur to Brahamkhal. This Jeep had a head on collision with a Scooter at 1.00 p.m. in the afternoon on the road, which resul...
Smt. Madhu Vs. State of Uttarakand and Another.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
1. Heard Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate for the applicant, Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1 and Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent no.2. 2. This application under Section 482 read with Section 483 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant against the order of the Sessions Judge, Hardiwar dated 2.7.2010 passed in Criminal Revision No. 313 of 2010 Smt. Madhu and others v. State and order dated 1.6.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 5042 of 2007 State v. Anil Kumar Bidani, whereby the application moved by the revisionist/applicant under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 3. Section 319 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.-(1) where, in the course of any injury into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any off...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »