Disposed

Tariklon etc. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Jul 2012CRM-M/13237/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order lists multiple criminal miscellaneous cases and revision petitions heard on 17.7.2012. Most resulted in adjournments due to non-appearance or withdrawal. One bail petition was dismissed. A maintenance revision was dismissed. All were disposed of summarily by the Single Judge without detailed reasoning.

What did the court decide?

Adjournments granted; one appeal dismissed for lack of merit; one petition dismissed as withdrawn; one declared infructuous; one maintenance revision dismissed.

Tariklon etc. Vs State of Punjab — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

211 Crl.Misc.Nos. 13821-22 of 2012 in Crl. A.No. 179-MA of 2012

¶2

Brijmanmohan Singh v. Yog Raj Wadhwa

¶3

Present: None for the appellant

¶4

Case called twice. None has caused appearance on behalf of the appellant.

¶5

In the interest of justice, hearing is deferred to 18.7.2012. To be shown in the urgent list.

¶6

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶7

17.7.2012 MS

¶8

236

¶9

Crl. Misc.No. 29894 of 2012 in Crl. Appeal No. 1142-SB of 2010

¶10

Jagdish Chand and Others v. State of Punjab

¶11

Present: Ms. Anju Arora, Advocate for the appellants Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG,Punjab

¶12

Custody certificate by way of affidavit is taken on record.

¶13

Learned counsel for the parties state that the case of the applicant-Sunil Kumar @ Sonu is covered by the ratio of the law laid down by the judgment in Daler Singh v. State of Punjab 2007(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Crl.), 316.

¶14

The appeal will take some time to mature.

¶15

Sentence of the applicant-appellant Sunil Kumar @ Sonu is suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

¶16

Bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

¶17

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶18

17.7.2012 MS

¶19

226

¶20

Crl.Misc.No. M-24121 of 2010

¶21

Gurleen Kaur v. Bachittar Singh

¶22

Present: None for the appellant Mr. R.M.Sharma, Advocate for the respondent

¶23

Case called twice. None has caused appearance on behalf of the appellant.

¶24

In the interest of justice, hearing is deferred to 22.8.2012.

¶25

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶26

17.7.2012 MS

¶27

224 A

¶28

Crl.Misc.Nos.M-14364 of 2008

¶29

Pawan Kumar Goyal v. Sudesh Kumar Goyal

¶30

Present: None for the petitioner

¶31

Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the respondent

¶32

On the request of learned counsel for the respondent, hearing is

¶33

deferred to 16.8.2012.

¶34

However, it is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted.

¶35

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶36

17.7.2012 MS

¶37

224 B

¶38

Crl.Misc.Nos. M-14366 of 2008

¶39

Pawan Kumar Goyal v. Sudesh Kumar Goyal

¶40

Present: None for the petitioner

¶41

Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the respondent

¶42

On the request of learned counsel for the respondent, hearing is

¶43

deferred to 16.8.2012.

¶44

However, it is made clear that no further adjournment shall be

¶45

granted.

¶46

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶47

17.7.2012 MS

¶48

212

¶49

Crl.Misc.No. M- 137 of 2012

¶50

Vipin Kumar v. State of Punjab and Others

¶51

Present: None for the appellant Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG,Punjab

¶52

Case called twice. None has caused appearance on behalf of the appellant.

¶53

In the interest of justice, hearing is deferred to 18.7.2012.

¶54

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶55

17.7.2012 MS

¶56

226

¶57

CRM. M 18828 of 2012 (O&M)

¶58

Satish Kumar Kaur v. State of Punjab

¶59

Present: Ms. G.K. Maan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab

¶60

After arguing the case for some time, learned counsel for the

¶61

petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition.

¶62

Allowed to do so.

¶63

Dismissed as withdrawn.

¶64

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

17.7.2012 MS

239

CRM. M 13237 of 2011

Tariklon etc. v. State of Punjab

¶69

Present: Mr. Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab

¶70

Learned State counsel states that the trial has been concluded

¶71

and petitioners have been convicted and sentenced.

¶72

Dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶73

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶74

17.7.2012 MS

¶75

307

¶76

CRM. A No. 123-SB of 2000

¶77

Tara Chand etc. v. State of Punjab

¶78

Present: Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocate for the appellants

¶79

Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab

¶80

On the request of learned counsel for the appellants, hearing is

¶81

deferred to 20.7.2012.

¶82

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶83

17.7.2012 MS

¶84

210

¶85

Crl. Misc. No. 13565 of 2012 in Crl. A. No. 175-MA of 2012

¶86

Shafi Ahmed v. State of Punjab & Anrs.

¶87

Present: Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate for the petitioner

¶88

For the reasons recorded in the application ( No. 13565 of 2012), the delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to all just exceptions.

¶89

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Ld. Trial Court has ignored the statements of PW1 Nawab Singh and PW2 Kanwar Jahan, wife of Nawab Singh, who have categorically stated that during the day the deceased was maltreated by the accused-respondent No. 2 (husband). The Ld. Trial Court has analysed the statements of both the witnesses and all other material placed on record.

¶90

In the absence of any corroborative evidence on record, it is not sufficient to conclude that case under section 306 IPC is made out.

¶91

The other submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that panchayats were convened at number of times, which indicate that it was not a happy marriage and relation between the parties were not cordial.

¶92

For having good matrimonial life, in the absence of any supportive evidence, no inference can be drawn against the accusedhusband.

¶93

In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed.

¶94

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶95

17.7.2012 MS

¶96

211

¶97

CRL. REVISION No. 1365 of 2012

¶98

Suraj Bhan vs. Kamlesh etc.

¶99

Present: Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate for the petitioner

¶100

The present petition has been filed against the judgment dated 14.2.2012 by the District Judge (Family Court) Bhiwani whereby respondent No. 1 was awarded Rs. 5000/- per month and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were awarded Rs. 3500/- per month each from the date of petition.

¶101

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are major, therefore, no amount can be awarded to them.

¶102

The factum of marriage is not in dispute. The Ld. Family Court has noticed that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the children of the parties. They are students and not earning anything. Though Neelam, is the unmarried daughter, Pankaj and Parveen, sons are 17 and 16 years respectively. Being students, it is the duty of the father to maintain the children,

¶103

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has obtained loan amounting to Rs. Four lacs from the Punjab National Bank and his relatives for the higher studies of respondents No. 2 to 4. However, Neelam, daughter could not complete her studies and left the course. The fact remains that the respondents are students.

¶104

In view of the above, this court finds no merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Dismissed.

¶105

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶106

17.7.2012 MS

Tariklon etc. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tariklon etc. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Krishan K. Mittal and Comapny Vs M/S Ludhiana Moulding Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Des Raj Vs State of Punjab etc.

Anju Bala Vs Bikramjit Singh and Ors.

Sarabjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ut of Chandigarh Vs Bhajan Singh

Kuldip Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.