Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Pappu Sonkar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Pappu Sonkar vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Mar 19, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1040421

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pappu Sonkar

Advocate Shri. T.N.Dubey

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

mcr.c.no.438 o”19. 03.13 shri t.n.dubey, counsel for the applicant. shri pramod chourasia, pl for respondents. heard on the question of admission. the applicant, one of the co-accused, has filed this petition under section 482 of the cr.p.c for quashment of the fir registered as crime no.144/05 at police station-belbagh, jabalpur against the applicant along with co-accused for the offence of section 147,148,294,506-b and 323 of the ipc. after taking me through the fir placed on the record, applicant's counsel firstly argued that even after lodging the same in the concerning book under section 154 of the cr.p.c, the signature of the complainant was not obtained by the sho. secondly, he said that the story putforth in the fir is different then the report in writing which was given by ram baba sonkar the brother of the complainant shyam kumar to the superintendent of police jabalpur on 5.3.05. so, in such premises the impugned fir is not reliable, but in response of some query of the court based on the provision of section 173(8) of the cr.p.c so also in view of the circumstance that the aforesaid report given by brother of the complainant to the superintendent of police is not part of the charge sheet, instead to argue further, applicant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to raise all the aforesaid objections along with the other objections stated in the petition at the appropriate stage of the trial in defense of the applicant including the stage of framing the charge. the petition is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty aforesaid. (u.c.maheshwari) judge mkl

Full Judgment

Mcr.C.No.438 o”

19. 03.13 Shri T.N.Dubey, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Pramod Chourasia, PL for respondents.

Heard on the question of admission.

The applicant, one of the co-accused, has filed this petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashment of the FIR registered as crime No.144/05 at Police Station-Belbagh, Jabalpur against the applicant along with co-accused for the offence of section 147,148,294,506-B and 323 of the IPC.

After taking me through the FIR placed on the record, applicant's counsel firstly argued that even after lodging the same in the concerning book under section 154 of the Cr.P.C, the signature of the complainant was not obtained by the SHO.

Secondly, he said that the story putforth in the FIR is different then the report in writing which was given by Ram Baba Sonkar the brother of the complainant Shyam Kumar to the Superintendent of Police Jabalpur on 5.3.05.

So, in such premises the impugned FIR is not reliable, but in response of some query of the court based on the provision of section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C so also in view of the circumstance that the aforesaid report given by brother of the complainant to the Superintendent of Police is not part of the charge sheet, instead to argue further, applicant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to raise all the aforesaid objections along with the other objections stated in the petition at the appropriate stage of the trial in defense of the applicant including the stage of framing the charge.

The petition is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty aforesaid.

(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial