Uttaranchal Court January 2012 Judgments

Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others

Court: Uttaranchal

Reported in: 2012CrLJ1425

1. By means of filing this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the prayer has been made to quash the charge-sheet no.208/05 and the order of cognizance dated 28.4.2006, passed thereupon by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. The said charge-sheet is the result of investigation on the basis of FIR No.285 of 2005 (Crime No.258/05), pertaining to P.S. Ranipur, Haridwar. 2. In brief, the facts are that a first information report was lodged by respondent no.3 Ambrish Singh S/o Dharampal Singh, who is the brother of deceased Anurag Singh. The deceased was an Engineer, posted in Hindustan Lever Factory based at Roshnabad (Haridwar) and used to reside in a rented accommodation in the close vicinity of the factory. The said factory was being run under the supervision of its manager Sri Praveen Pradhan (present petitioner). The petitioner forced the deceased for some wrong doings, wherefor Sri Anurag Singh was not prepared. On account of failure of Sri Anurag Singh to bow down to the illegal dema...

Rafat Araa Vs. Kamar Mirja

Court: Uttaranchal

Reported in: 2012(4)LRC478

(1) Heard.(2) By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has quashing of the judgment and order dated 16.05.2011, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, in Criminal Appeal No. 133 of 2010, Qamar Mirja vs. Rafat Araa, filed under section 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.(3) Brief facts of the case, are that, the petitioner Rafat Araa is real aunt (BUA) of the respondent Qamar Mirja. She moved an application under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against the respondent pleading that she was being subjected to physical cruelty by the respondent to oust her from the house, they are living together. It is also pleaded by the petitioner Smt. Rafat Araa that the house was purchased by her husband through a registered sale deed from Kaisar Mirja (father of the present respondent), and allowed Qamar Mirja (nephew of the petitioner) to stay in the house as a goodwill gesture. On the...

Dharampal and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another

Court: Uttaranchal

Reported in: 2012CrLJ206(NOC)

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. It is pertinent to mention that none turned up on behalf of respondent no. 2 despite sufficient service upon him so this Court rendered hearing to learned counsel for the applicants and learned Brief Holder for the State. 2. By means of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. a prayer has been advanced to quash the order of cognizance dated 23.10.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Complaint Case No. 995 of 2007 titled as Yashpal Vs. Dharampal and another. It has also been prayed to quash the entire proceedings of the said complaint case. 3. The facts qua controversy are that Puja, daughter of applicants Dharampal and Sunita, was espoused with private respondent no. 2 Yashpal in early 2006. After a couple of months, differences cropped up between two families on the question of dowry and Puja faced tyrannical and atrocious conduct at the hands of her husband Yashpal as well as other members of the matrimonial house. There...

israr and Others Vs. State of Uttarkahand and Another

Court: Uttaranchal

Reported in: 2012CrLJ1462

1. By way of this petition, moved under Sections 482/483 Cr.P.C., the order of cognizance dated 8.6.2007 has been assailed, which was passed by Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur (U.S. Nagar) in criminal complaint case no.1138/2007, Smt. Nazreen Vs. Israr and others, calling Israr (husband), Smt. Saddiqan (mother in law) and Dulha Miyan (father in law) to stand trial for the offence of Sections 452, 364, 498-A IPC and one punishable u/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that Smt. Nazreen was espoused with Israr as per Muslim customs almost 10 years before launching of the complaint on 18.5.2007. Soon after the marriage, she faced the voracious attitude of the applicants as well as other members of the family, namely, Ikrar, Abrar (brothers-in-law) and Ishrat (sister-in-law) on the question of dowry. Almost after a year of wedding, she was expelled from her matrimonial home, so she moved a complaint to the competent officer at Pilibhit where the house of...

United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Di ...

Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun

C.C. Pant, Member, J. 1. This is insurers appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 14.11.2008 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 66 of 2007. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint against the opposite party No. 1 insurance company and directed the insurance company to pay sum of Rs. 38,500/- to the complainant together with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. 2. In brief the facts of the case, as stated in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant M/s Om Prakash Vijay Kumar Jain is a proprietorship concern and is carrying on the business of sale of Cattle Field Products, Ghee, Oil, Pulses, Rice, Maida, Dry Fruits, Spices, Cosmetic etc. at Vikas Nagar. The complainant has obtained a cash credit limit from opposite party No. 2 Punjab National Bank. The stock kept in the shop was insured with the insurance company for sum o...

Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. and Others Vs. Ombudsman and Others

Court: Uttaranchal

BARIN GHOSH, C.J. Oral: 1. All these appeals have raised identical questions of fact and law, and accordingly, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission, constituted by and under the Electricity Act 2003, made and published tariff order on 8thSeptember 2003, whereby and under, it provided ‘no system loading charge will be payable’ under the heading ‘industrial consumers’. In the next tariff order for the Financial Year 2005-06, UERC repeated what it had stated in its order dated 9thSeptember 2003, and on top of that directed refund of the same together with interest at bank rate. 3. Appellant subsequent to 8thSeptember 2003, charged system loading charge from the respondents. Respondents, accordingly, approached the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, constituted by the appellant under sub Section (5) of Section 42 of the Act. Forum held that system loading charge is no part of tariff, and acc...

Surendra Singh and Others Vs. A.D.J./1st Fast Track and Others

Court: Uttaranchal

Heard Shri Sharad Sharma, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Anirudha Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Arvind Vashistha, the learned counsel for the respondents. The land, in question, was acquired in the year 1962 in favour of B.H.E.L. Subsequently, it was transferred to Avas Vikas Parishad in the year 1993. The petitioner alleges that the Avas Vikas Parishad subsequently allotted a plot in favour of the petitioner. One suit No. 35 of 1990 was filed by Avas Vikas Parishad against Yashpal praying for an injunction and for possession was decreed on 11th May, 1994 and, in the execution proceedings, possession of the land was given to Avas Vikash Parishad in the year 1997 from Yashpal. Yashpal is the father of present respondent No.5 Vikas. One Hemraj filed a suit against the defendants being suit No. 254 of 1998 for permanent injunction alleging that they are the bhumidhars of the plot in question. This suit was subsequently pursued by Yashpal to whom a po...