Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Dinesh Kumar & Others vs State Of U.P.,Thru. Prin. Secy., ... on 27 March, 2018

Saroj Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 26 April, 2023

17. The instant matter is hereby decided without calling the counter affidavit from the respondents since the action of the responding authorities are contrary to the settled provisions of the U.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1947 which has been broadly discussed in the judgment dated 16.12.2022 passed in Writ C No. 28230 of 2022 (Dinesh Kumar And 4 Others versus State of U.P. And 3 Others) and after footing the action of the respondents in the litmus of the judgment as mentioned above, the same seems to be illegal.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S Srivastava - Full Document

Smt Pinki Devi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 12 April, 2023

20. The instant matter is hereby decided without calling the counter affidavit from the respondents since the action of the responding authorities are contrary to the settled provisions of the U.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1947 which has been broadly discussed in the judgment dated 16.12.2022 passed in Writ C No. 28230 of 2022 (Dinesh Kumar And 4 Others versus State of U.P. And 3 Others) and after footing the action of the respondents in the litmus of the judgment as mentioned above, the same seems to be illegal.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - S Srivastava - Full Document

Sheetla Baksh Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 22 September, 2023

5. Taking note of the aforesaid, the order impugned dated 15.05.2023, Annexure No. 1 to the petition, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent no.2/District Magistrate, Gonda to pass order afresh after taking note of Rule(s) 256 and 257 of Rules, 1947 and the observation of this Court in the judgment passed in the case of Dinesh Kumar and 4 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Other (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S Lavania - Full Document

Dinesh And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. on 21 March, 2024

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties at the bar that between the same parties, some other matrimonial litigations were pending and in Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 36203 of 2015, on the basis of compromise, proceedings of complaint case no.294 of 2015 under section 406 IPC were also quashed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.4.2017. The parties were given opportunity to file their settlement agreement before the Mediation Centre of this Court and it was also agreed upon in the settlement agreement dated 2.6.2016 acted upon between the parties that they will also file joint affidavit in Criminal Appeal No.2195 of 2015 (Dinesh And 5 Others Vs. State of U.P.) pending before this Court and made request to consider the case in the light of settlement agreement acted upon between the parties.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Viresh vs State Of U.P. on 18 March, 2025

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that identically placed co-accused Dinesh, Shivraj and Ashok have been granted bail vide order dated 08.01.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 423 of 2025 (Dinesh and 2 others Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order is annexed as annexure 11 to the affidavit. It is submitted that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased Smt. Rani but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 30 of the affidavit and is in jail since 09.12.2024.
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S Gopal - Full Document

Shanti Devi And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. on 10 April, 2025

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicants are the Jethani of the deceased Smt. Rani Devi. It is submitted that the marriage of the deceased Smt. Rani Devi was solemnized with Viresh in the year, 1997. It is further submitted that identically placed co-accused Dinesh, Shivraj and Ashok have been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.01.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 423 of 2025 (Dinesh and 2 others Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order is annexed as annexure 11 to the affidavit. It is submitted that Viresh, the husband of the deceased Smt. Rani, has also been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 18.03.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3576 of 2025, photocopy of the order has been placed before this Court which is taken on record. It is further submitted that the applicants are ladies and are entitled to get benefit of Section 480 B.N.S.S., 2023. The applicants have no criminal history as stated in para 31 of the affidavit and are in jail since 28.01.2025.
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S Gopal - Full Document

Sarvesh vs State Of U.P. on 8 May, 2025

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is the Jeth of the deceased Smt. Rani Devi. It is submitted that the marriage of the deceased Smt. Rani Devi was solemnized with Viresh in the year, 1997. It is further submitted that identically placed co-accused Dinesh, Shivraj and Ashok have been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.01.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 423 of 2025 (Dinesh and 2 others Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order is annexed as annexure 11 to the affidavit. It is submitted that Viresh the husband, Shanti Devi, Mamta Devi and Sunita Devi the jetnai of the deceased Smt. Rani Devi have also been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 18.03.2025 and 10.04.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications Nos.
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S Gopal - Full Document

Smt. Rambeti vs State Of U.P. on 14 February, 2023

It is alleged in the FIR that applicant was Ex-pradhan of the village and in preliminary inquiry she found embezzled amount of Rs.3,65,569/-. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant in capacity of Pradhan carried forward various proposals of the Government schemes and done work in village and he further argued that present FIR lodged on enquiry report submitted by Deputy Agriculture Director in command of District Magistrate, Sambhal order dated 03.12.2019 and in view of Rules 256 and 257 of 1947 Rules District Magistrate has no power to direct and to set up enquiry. The Chief Audit Officer has power to set up enquiry against the Pradhan and lodging report is against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.12.2020 in Dinesh Kumar and 4 others vs. State of U.P. & 4 others. Moreover, various work have been done in the village. Against the order of the District Magistrate there is provision to file appeal. The present dispute is purely civil in nature and lodging FIR is only to harass the applicant. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. The applicant is not a previous convict. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.12.2022 and in case she is enlarged on bail she will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - D Verma - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 19 March, 2025

4. Apart from the same he also placed reliance upon the the judgment and order dated 12.04.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ A No. 5335 of 2023 (Smt. Pinki Devi vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) as well as Division Bench Judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 16.12.2022 in Writ C No. 28230 of 2022 (Dinesh Kumar and 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others).
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - P Padia - Full Document
1   2 Next