w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Surendra Choudhary v/s State of Bihar


Company & Directors' Information:- CHOUDHARY CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120OR2010PTC011997

    Cri. Appeal 283 Of 2002

    Decided On, 25 August 2006

    At, High Court of Bihar

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA KUMARI

    For the Appearing Parties: Hare Krishna Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar, Ritesh Singh, Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(1.) Appellants being aggrieved by their conviction for offence under Sections 304B, 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 7 of 2000 (67 of 2000) have preferred this appeal. No separate sentence has been awarded for other offences, for which the appellants have been held guilty.

(2.) Prosecution story, according to the written report given by P. W. 8 Rajendra Choudhary before the Officer-Incharge of Gurua police station on 10-1-1999, is that his daughter Sarswati Devi was married four years earlier to appellant No.l Surendra Choudhary according to Hindu rites. After the marriage, according to the report Sarswati Devi started living with her husband at her matrimonial-home. It has been alleged in the first information report that when his daughter used to come to her parents place, she used to narrate to her mother that her husband (appellant No.l), father-in-law Rani Jatan Choudhary (appellant No.2) and mother-in-law Deo Rani Devi @ Bardahi Devi (appellant No.3) make demand of dowry, particularly Scooter. In the written report he has also alleged that when he used to go tp matrimonial-home of his daughter, she used to narrate him about the demand made by her in-laws. According to the informant, on 25-12-1998 his son-in-law appellant Surendra Choudhary came to his house and stated that he had struck a deal for purchase of second-hand motorcycle for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and demanded said amount for the purchase thereof. Informant showed his inability to pay the amount and stated that some amount shall be paid in the marriage of his son, whereupon appellant Surendra Choudhary got annoyed and left the place without taking meal. According to the informant, on 7-1-1999 when the informant went to the matrimonial-home of his daughter, her father-in-law appellant No.2 Ram Jatan Choudhary stated that Sarswati Devi had died and requested him to take away her son. Informant alleged that his daughter has been done to death by the appellants i.e. husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law for non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry. On the basis of the aforesaid information, Gurua P.S. case No.2 of 1999 was registered under Section 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet and the appellants were ultimately committed to the Court of Session. During the trial they were charged for caus- ing the death of Sarswatl Devi for the demand of dowry, as also subjecting her to cruelty and for disappearance of the evidence for screening the legal punishment punishable under Section 304B/34, 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants refuted the charge and claimed to be tried.

(4.) Prosecution in support of its case had altogether examined ten witnesses, out of whom, P. W. 8 Rajendra Choudhary is the informant. P. W. 9 Chhotu Prasad is a formal witness and P. W. 10 Anil Kumar Paswan is the Investigating Officer of the case. P.Ws.1 to 7 have been examined to support the case of the prosecution. Appellants denied to have committed the offence and pleaded false implication. Their specific plea is that the deceased died of cold and diarrhoea. However, no defence witness has been examined. Besides aforesaid the mother of the deceased has been examined as Court witness No. 1 and her father informant also as Court witness No.2 (sic.l).

(5.) Before we discuss the evidence of the Witnesses, we deem it expedient to narrate the manner in which the trial has been conducted. Last of the witnesses shown in the charge-sheet was examined on 11-4-2001. In fact, the Counsel conducting the prosecution informed to the Court on the said 4ay that all the witnesses cited in the charge-sheet have already been examined. However, the learned Judge finding that the name of the mother of the victim is not shown as a witness in the case and observing that young "women remains more close to her mother" and on the expectation that she must had narrated ill-treatment meted to her by her in-laws, thought it proper to examine her. Accordingly the learned Judge suo motu exercised his power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and by order dated 11-4-2001 adjourned the case to 3rd of May, 2001 for her examination. Mother of the deceased was ultimately examined as Court witness No.1 on 4-5-2001.

(6.) Thereafter the statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 Of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 9-5-2001 and the case was adjourned for argument. On 12-7-2001 the learned Judge observed that while going through the record he has found that the evidence of the informant has already been recorded but his re-examination is essential for the ends of justice. In the aforesaid premises he exercised his power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure suo motu again and directed for re-examination of P. W. 8 Rajendra Choudhary. Ultimately said Rajendra Choudhary was examined as Court witness No.2 (sic 1) on 5-1-2002. Thereafter the statements of the appellants were again recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 10-1-2002.

(7.) P. W. 1 Kailash Mahto, P. W. 2 Ramesh Rajak, P. W. 3 Bindeshwari Prasad, P. W. 4 Amresh Paswan, P. W. 5 Binay Paswan, P. W. 6 Bedami Devi and P. W. 7 Chandradeep Rajak have stated in their evidence that they had learnt that the deceased died of diarrhoea and in fact the relative of the deceased from the parents side also participated in cremation. At the first instance, we wondered as to why the prosecution had not declared them hostile and cross-examined them, but we have been told that in fact during the course of investigation itself, these witnesses have stated that the deceased died of diarrhoea. Perhaps this was the justification, not to declare them hostile.

(8.) P. W. 8 Rajendra Choudhary is the informant of the case and father of the deceased. He had stated in his evidence that the marriage of his daughter had taken place about five years ago and she died in December, 1999 because of cold and diarrhoea. He has been declared hostile. In the cross examination he had further stated that the fact of death of his daughter was intimated to him and in fact he had gone to her matrimonial home. P. W. 9 Chhotu Prasad is an Advocate's Clerk, who had identified the signature of the Officer-Incharge of the police station and proved the formal F. I. R. P. W. 10 Anil Kumar Paswan is the Investigating Officer of the case and in paragraph 6 of the cross-examination he had stated that the witnesses, whose names find place in paragraphs 7 to 12 and paragraphs 44 and 45 during the course of investigation, had stated that the deceased died of cold and diarrhoea.

(9.) Puniya Devi, the mother of the deceased, who as stated earlier has been examined as Court witness No.l, has stated that her daughter Sarsatiya Devi was married to the appellant Surendra Choudhary 5-6 years earlier and she died four years after the marriage at her matrimonial-home. She had specifically stated that her in-laws had informed them about her death and she along with her husband had gone to her matrimonial place. As regards the cause of death, she deposed that her daughter died of diarrhoea. In the cross-examination she had stated that she is deposing voluntarily without any pressure.

(10.) P.W. 8 Rajendra Choudhary has been examined later on and his deposition is in the form of question and answer. In answer to the Court questions he had stated that his daughter was married in the year 1993 and died in January, 1999 on account of non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry, which used to be made by his son-in-law appellant Surendra Choudhary. In answer to another question he had stated that his son-in-law started demanding dowry, four months after the marriage. He had specifically stated that on 20-12-1998 his son-in-law came and stated that he had arranged a second-hand motorcycle for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and for its purchase he demanded money, which demand he could not fulfil and promised to pay some money in the marriage of his son. This was not liked by his son-in-law and without taking food he left the place. The learned Judge had drawn his attention to his evidence recorded earlier, wherein he had stated that his signature was obtained by the Sub-Inspector of Police on a plain paper. He said so, as he was threatened by appellant Ram Jatan Choudhary. He had also stated that the statement given by him in the Court earlier was under threat.

(11.) The learned Judge placing reliance on the evidence of Rajendra Choudhary recorded as C. W. 2 held that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced the appellants as above.

(12.) Mr. Hare Krishna Kumar, appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the statements of the appellants were recorded on 9-5-2001 and thereafter by order dated 12-7-2001 the learned Judge had directed for re-examination of P. W. 8 Rajendra Choudhary. He submits that there was no occasion for the learned Judge to direct his re-examination. He submits that neither the witness nor the Public Prosecutor had filed any application for his re-examination.

(13.) Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor, however, appearing on behalf of the State submits that the learned Judge possessed unfettered power to summon any person as a witness or call and re-examine any witness, if it is of the opinion that evidence of such person is essential to the just decision of the case. In support of his submission, he ,has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Sharma and others v. State of Jharkhand (2004 (2) S. C. C. (Cri), 1706) : (2004 Cri LJ 2527) and our attention has been drawn to paragraph 12 of the judgment, which reads as follows :

"It is not that in every case where the witness who had given evidence before Court wants to change his mind and is prepared to speak differently, that the Court concerned should readily accede to such request by lending its assistance. If the witness who

deposed one way earlier comes before the appellate Court with a prayer that he is prepared to give evidence which is materially different from what he has given earlier at the trial with the reasons for the earlier lapse, the Court can consider the genuineness of the prayer in the context as to whether the party concerned had a fair op-, portunity to speak the truth earlier ancl in an appropriate case, accept it, It is not that the power is to be exercised in a routine or cavalier manner, but being an exception to the ordinary rule of disposal of appeal bn the basis of records received in exceptional cases or extraordinary situation the; Court' can neither feel powerless nor abdicate its duty to arrive at the truth and satisfy the ends of justice. The Court ultimately can certainly be guided by the metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff, and in a case; which has tell-tale imprint of reasonableness and genuineness in the prayer, the same has to be accepted, at least to con- sider the worth, credibility and the accept-' ability of the same on merits of the material sought to be brought in."

(14.) Our pointed attention has also been drawn to paragraphs 43 of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Zahira, Habibulla H. Sheikh and another v. State of Gujarat and others (2004 S. C. C. (Cri), 999) : (2004 Cri LJ 2050, Para 46), which reads as follows :

"The Courts have to take a participatory role in a trial. They are not expected to be tape recorders to record whatever is being stated by the witnesses. Section 311 of the. Code and Section 165 of the Evidence Act, confer vast and wide powers on presiding officers of Court to elicit all necessary ma- reterials by playing an active role in the evidence collecting process. They have to monitor the proceedings in aid of justice in a manner that something, which is not relevant, is not relevant, is not unnecessarily brought into record. Even if the prosecutor is remiss in some ways, it can control the proceedings effectively so that the ultimate objective i.e. truth is arrived at. This becomes more necessary where the Court has reasons to believe that the prosecuting agency or the prosecutor is not acting in the requisite manner. The Court cannot afford to be wishfully or pretend to be blissfully ignorant or oblivious to such serious pitfalls or dereliction of duty on the part of the prosecuting agency. The prosecutor who does not act fairly and acts more like a counsel for the defence is a liability to the fair judicial system, and Courts could not also play into the hands of such prosecuting agency showing indifference or adopting an attitude of total aloofness."

(15.) Having appreciated the rival submission, we do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Prasad and the authorities relied on are clearly distinguishable.

(16.) It is well settled that Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers power to the Court at any stage of trial to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any person already examined, if his evidence appears to be essential for just decision of the case. It is equally well settled that power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised to fill up the lacuna in the case of prosecution. Although the Court possesses wide discretion but for exercise of the power, there has to be reason and material justifying the same, Here in the present case Rajendra Choudhary was examined as P.W. 8. Thereafter the mother of the victim lady was also examined as a Court witness. In our opinion there was no material before the trial Judge to come to the conclusion that re-examination of P. W. 8 is essential for the just decision of the case, excepting, perhaps his own belief that the appellants are the perpetrators of crime. It is widely accepted that the Court while trying a case cannot be a silent spectator and must play a participatory role but in our opinion it shall be dangerous to allow the trial Court to exercise its power on its belief which many time may not be true. Justice in accordance with law is our goal. On the day the learned Judge decided to re-examine Rajendra Choudhary there was no application either by him or by the prosecution. He has been examined as if he is a fresh witness. This witness having already been examined as P. W. 8, his evidence on re-examination if permissible should have been in continuity as P. W. 8 itself. We are constrained to observe that the learned Judge has passed the order of recall and recorded the evidence of P. W. 8 later on as C. W. 2, in a most cavalier manner without any justification. The authorities of the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Sharrna (2004 Cri LJ 2527) (supra), and Zahira Habibullah H. Sheikh (2004 Cri LJ 2050) (supra), relied on by Mr. Prasad in no way help the case of prosecution. In Anil Sharma (supra), the Supreme Court had examined the scope of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in appeal and in Zahira (supra), the role which the trial Court should play under the aforesaid provision, when it believes that the trial is not being conducted in a fair manner. But the Supreme Court itself has given a word of caution that this power cannot be exercised in routine or cavalier manner.

(17.) Even we assume

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

in favour of the prosecution that the learned Judge rightly exercised the power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we find it very difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellants. The informant while being re-examined as P. W. 8 had stated that his daughter died of cold and diarrhoea. In the cross-examination he had admitted that they were informed about her death. Further the mother of the victim lady while being examined as a Court witness had also stated that her daughter died of diarrhoea and family members from the matrimonial side had informed them about her death and in fact she along with her husband had gone to her matrimonial home. She had also stated that neither the husband of the deceased nor his family members ever demanded any dowry. The evidence of Rajendra Choudhary recorded later on is in sharp contradiction to his own evidence earlier, that of his wife Puniya Devi as also host of other witnesses (P.W. 1 to P. W. 7) examined by the prosecution, who have consistently stated that deceased died of cold and diarrhoea and her parents attended the funeral. Even as Court-witness No.2 Rajendra Choudhary had not stated that the father-in-law and mother-in-law made any demand of dowery. In such State of evidence, we are of the opinion that it shall be highly unsafe to sustain the conviction of the appellants. (18.) Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. Appellant No. 1 Surendra Choudhary and appellant No.2 Ram Jatan Choudhary are in custody. Jhey be released forthwith, unless required in any other case. Appellant No. 3 Deo Rani Devi @ Bardahi Devi is on bail. She shall be discharged of her bail bonds. Appeal allowed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

05-08-2020 Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
29-07-2020 Shree Choudhary Transport Company Versus Income Tax Officer Supreme Court of India
26-06-2020 Pankaj Kumar Choudhary @ Pankaj Kumar Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
19-06-2020 Vipin Kumar Choudhary Versus Makhan Lal Chaturvedi National University Of Journalism & Communication - Bhopal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-03-2020 Jagdish Kumar Choudhary & Others Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
27-02-2020 Prashant Parakh Versus Subhash Choudhary High Court of Chhattisgarh
18-02-2020 M/s. Shiv Mahadev Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director H. Sahadevram Choudhary, Chennai Versus The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 Kameshwar Choudhary Versus Shravan Kumar High Court of Judicature at Patna
03-02-2020 Manoj Kumar Mishra Versus Senehlata Choudhary High Court of Jharkhand
04-01-2020 Shankarrao Gajanan Choudhary & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Hon'ble Minister for Co-operation, Marketing & Textiles, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
02-01-2020 Sohan Prasad Choudhary Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-10-2019 The Chief Executive Officer & Chairman, Zilla Parishad Multi Drug Treatment Project & Others Versus Pandurang Rambhau Choudhary & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
14-10-2019 Bhumika Choudhary Versus All India Institute of Medical Sciences High Court of Delhi
17-09-2019 SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus Triloki Choudhary National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-09-2019 Bajrang Choudhary Versus Religare Finvest Ltd. & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
29-08-2019 Manager, Cholamandalam MS Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Ajay Choudhary & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
20-08-2019 Mewa Lal Choudhary Versus Union of India High Court of Judicature at Patna
07-08-2019 Ahana Gupta Versus Girish Kant Choudhary High Court of Judicature at Patna
25-07-2019 Om Prakash Versus Amit Choudhary & Others High Court of Delhi
04-07-2019 Fulmati Choudhary Versus Central Bank of India Through Its Managing Director, Central Office, Maharashtra & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
21-06-2019 Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Division Dhule Versus Ramesh Kisan Choudhary In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
07-06-2019 Anshul Choudhary & Another Versus Imperia Structures Limited Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
16-05-2019 Shiv Kumar Choudhary & Others Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
03-05-2019 R.L. Choudhary Versus Skynet Word Wide Express Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-04-2019 Shantabai Tukaram Choudhary Versus M/s. A.K. Builders registered partnership firm through its partner Zuber Asgarbhai Poonawala High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-03-2019 Neeraj Choudhary Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh
07-03-2019 Brajesh Kumar Choudhary & Others Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
26-02-2019 Dhanruparam Choudhary Versus Ravichandran High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-02-2019 Dinesh Kumar Choudhary Son of Late Versus State of Rajasthan & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
06-02-2019 Jeetram Choudhary Versus The State of Rajasthan & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
15-01-2019 Sushila Choudhary & Another Versus State of Rajasthan & Others High Court of Rajasthan
07-01-2019 Santosh Kumar Choudhary & Others Versus The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Co-Operative Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
04-12-2018 Sri Mahabir Prosad Choudhary Versus M/s. Octavius Tea & Industries Ltd. & Another Supreme Court of India
30-10-2018 Shrikant & Rajendra Vilas Choudhary Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
29-10-2018 Sanjay Choudhary Versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited High Court of Rajasthan
12-10-2018 Jaglal Choudhary @ Karu Choudhary Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
19-09-2018 Mahesh Choudhary & Others Versus State of Rajasthan & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
04-09-2018 UCO Bank Versus Dharmendra Deo Choudhary & Others Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Delhi
31-08-2018 State of Sikkim Versus Ram Nath Choudhary High Court of Sikkim
23-08-2018 Mahesh Chandra Choudhary Versus The Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
10-08-2018 State Bank of India, (Retail Assets Central Processing Centre), Rep by its Chief Manager, Sunil Kumar Choudhary Versus District Magistrate & District Collector, Thiruvallur & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-06-2018 Vikram Aditya Choudhary & Another Versus Sabiruddin National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-06-2018 Neelam Choudhary Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
25-05-2018 Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus Dharmendra Choudhary National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-05-2018 Ramesh Kumar Choudhary Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
04-04-2018 Minu Choudhary Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-03-2018 Sushil Choudhary Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
26-02-2018 M/s. Sim Enterprises, Represented by its Proprietor, Goa Versus Shaikh Abdul Rashid Choudhary & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
23-02-2018 M/s. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Chennai Versus Prabhu Nath Choudhary & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-02-2018 Choudhary Gharu Ram Versus State & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
12-02-2018 Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus Choudhary Tilotama Das Supreme Court of India
01-02-2018 Kumari Kiran Choudhary, Jodhpur Versus U.O.I. Through General Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
01-02-2018 Vinod Choudhary Versus State of Rajasthan Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
10-01-2018 Sanjay Choudhary Versus State of Rajasthan Through PP High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
06-12-2017 Rajbala Choudhary Versus The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary Home & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
24-11-2017 Ramswaroop Choudhary & Others Versus State of Rajasthan, Department of Home, Through Its Secretary & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
17-07-2017 Life Insurance Corporation of India & Another Versus Dharmendra Choudhary National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2017 Binod Choudhary & Another Versus Tata Memorial Centre & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-07-2017 Ram Karan Choudhary Versus Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-05-2017 Choudhary Cotton Ginning & Pressing Factory V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
29-05-2017 Prem Choudhary Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India High Court of Rajasthan
15-05-2017 Ashwani Kumar Choudhary Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Lucknow Bench
01-05-2017 Banna Ram Choudhary V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
07-04-2017 Dr. JitendrSa Kumar Choudhary Versus State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Medical & Health Department & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
04-04-2017 Rashmi Choudhary Versus State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
04-04-2017 Rashmi Choudhary Versus State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
30-03-2017 Sampati Versus Dilip Choudhary High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
27-03-2017 Harimohan Bansal Versus Seduram Choudhary High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
08-03-2017 Aravind Choudhary Versus The State of Telangana through its Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat & Another In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
07-03-2017 Lt Col D. S. Choudhary & Others Versus Union of India, Through the Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of Karnataka
07-03-2017 Au Financier (India) Ltd. Versus Jitendra Singh Choudhary National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-03-2017 D.S. Choudhary and Others V/S Union of India and Others. High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru
06-03-2017 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Anand Mayee Choudhary & Another Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
06-02-2017 Sandeep Choudhary Versus State of Rajasthan & Another High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
03-02-2017 Anju Choudhary Versus Akshat Choudhary Supreme Court of India
23-01-2017 Rishabh Choudhary & Others Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
13-01-2017 Bishnu Chandra Choudhary Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others High Court of Jharkhand
09-01-2017 Sharda Choudhary & Others Versus Mal Singh & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
19-12-2016 Sanjay Choudhary Versus Anjali Devi High Court of Judicature at Patna
18-11-2016 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager S.K. Choudhary Versus Veeranjaneyalu & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
18-11-2016 Uttam Daulat Baviskar Versus Amitabh Roy Choudhary & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
19-10-2016 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus Ramdayal Choudhary National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-08-2016 Ram Murti Choudhary @ Ram Murat Prasad Chaurasiya Versus Ram Nihora Choudhary High Court of Judicature at Patna
10-08-2016 M/s. Takshila Seas & Resort Pvt. Ltd., Through its Director Sanjay Kumar Choudhary Versus State of Bihar Through The Commissioner & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
15-07-2016 Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Deen Dayal Choudhary High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
20-06-2016 Shekhar Choudhary Versus Union of India, through Directorate of General Defence Estates High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
16-06-2016 Rajkumar Choudhary Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
08-06-2016 Mulla Bai Choudhary & Another Versus Armaan Tractors & Another Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
18-05-2016 Minu Choudhary W/o Mithlesh Choudhary, Proprietor of M/s Shree Devi Store Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through The Divisional Manager & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-05-2016 Satyendra Narayan Choudhary Versus The State of Bihar, Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
05-05-2016 Binay Kumar Choudhary Versus Priti Choudhary High Court of Jharkhand
29-04-2016 Dheli Choudhary & Others Versus State of Rajasthan & Others High Court of Rajasthan
25-04-2016 Nawal Kishore Choudhary Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-04-2016 The Branch Incharge, Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Anshita Choudhary & Another Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
18-04-2016 Tokeshwari Bai & Others Versus Parvati Choudhary & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
16-04-2016 Kanta Choudhary & Others Versus State of J&K & Another High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
11-03-2016 The State of Bihar & Others Versus Nawal Kishore Choudhary High Court of Judicature at Patna
08-03-2016 Jethee Choudhary Versus State of Rajasthan & Others High Court of Rajasthan
29-02-2016 Anubhav Kumar Choudhary & Others Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
26-02-2016 The Union of India Represented through the Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi & Others Versus Ashok Kumar Choudhary High Court of Judicature at Patna