Shangara Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1396
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc. No.M-28803 of 2008
Shangara Singh & Ors.
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 11/05/2009}
For the Petitioners: Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepinder Brar, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Complainant: Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Matrimonial dispute between husband and wife taken place in USA--Petitioners i.e. mothers-in-law, father-in-law and brothers-in-law residing in India--Marriage dissolved in USA by mutual consent during pendency of petition--Granted made absolute.
Criminal Law--Bail--Anticipatory Bail--Cruelty to Wife--Domestic Violence--Matrimonial dispute between husband and wife taken place in USA--Petitioners i.e. mothers-in-law, father-in-law and brothers-in-law residing in India--Marriage dissolved in USA by mutual consent during pendency of petition--All claim between parties are settled--Dispute that survives is regarding gold ornaments--Petitioner have joined investigation and their custody is not required for purpose of investigation--Interim bail granted made absolute--Complainant however would be at liberty to claim their articles as given without prejudice to their rights to claim--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438--Penal Code, 1860, Sections 406 and 498-A--Domestic Violence Act., Section 5/31. (Paras 3, 4, 6 & 7)
--------------------
Prem Chand Gupta v. Nirmal Gupta
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1397
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.D.Anand
F.A.O. No. 57-M of 2001
Prem Chand Gupta
v.
Nirmal Gupta
{Decided on 07/05/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. V.M. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
Matrimonial Law--Restitution of conjugal rights--Husband wants restitution only on condition that wife would sell her house in Bathinda and would come over to matrimonial home at Patiala just in order to enable him to raise housing loan--Both spouse in employment of bank--Parties have grown up children--Marriage of parties was solemised on 5.3.1988 and are living separately since 30.8.1994--Wife proved reasons for want of trust in husband--Wife also able to prove that an attempt to do away with her was made by brother of husband by throwing her off a speeding scooter which he himself was driving and instead of getting her medical help opted to fled the spot--Wife had reasonable excuse to refrain from joining conjugal company of husband--Husband not entitled to restitution of conjugal rights--Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 9. (Paras 15, 16 & 17)
--------------------
Sanoj Kumar & Anr. v. State of Punjab
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1400
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia.
Criminal Misc. No. M-11106 of 2009
Sanoj Kumar & Anr.
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 11/05/2009}
For the Petitioners: Mr. R.S. Bedi, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
Contraband--Bail--Grant of--Recovery of 52 kg. of poppy husk--Bail granted to co-accused--No other case under Act registered against petitioners--Petitioner entitled to grant of regular bail for reasons stated in order passed in case of co-accused--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439--Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 15/61. (Para 2, 3 & 4)
------------------
Uggar Sain v. State of Punjab
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1401
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Misc. No. M-11318 of 2009
Uggar Sain
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 08/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
Criminal Law--Bail--Anticipatory Bail--Attempt to Murder--Co-accused granted anticipatory bail--Case of petitioner is similar to co-accused--Petitioner granted same benefit--Therefore, interim bail granted to petitioner made absolute till submission of report under 173 Cr.P.C. subject to joining the investigation--Thereafter application of petitioner for regular bail shall be decided by trial Court on merits of case--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438--Penal Code, 1860, Section 307, 436, 427, 353, 352, 186, 148 and 149. (Para 4 & 5)
----------------
Rakam Singh v. State of Haryana
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1403
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Misc. No. 10911-M of 2009
Rakam Singh
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 08/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagdeep S. Virk, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
For the Complainant: Mr. Jayoti Parshad Sharma, Advocate.
Criminal Law--Bail--Anticipatory bail--Officiating sarpach signed Annexure P-1 in good faith but no record was received--Custodial interrogation of petitioner not required as petitioner had discharged onus handing over of record by proving execution of Annexure P-1 by officiating Sarpach--Pre-arrest bail granted to petitioner affirmed till filing of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438--Penal Code, 1860, Section 406 and 166 (Para 3 & 4)
--------------------
Vijay Kumar v. State of Punjab
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1404
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajai Lamba
Civil Writ Petition No.13820 of 2006
Vijay Kumar
v.
State of Punjab & Ors.
{Decided on 05/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Mr. Anil Sharma, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Respondent No.3: Mr. I.S. Ratta, Advocate.
Municipal Law--Annual rateable value--Assessment of--Annual rateable value proposed on behalf of corporation vide show cause notice as Rs.2,70,000/-.--Increased by joint commissioner without assigning any reasons--Objections raised on behalf of petitioner for assessing rateable value below Rs.2,70,000/- not considered--Order passed by appellate authority also non-speaking--Held; that order adversely affects rights of petitioner--It is imperative for authorities to assign reasons--Impugned orders quashed--Matter remitted of observations made and in view of provisions of Section 93 of the act--|Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, Section 93 & 163.
(Para 11,13,14 & 16)
--------------------
