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.

Kishan Sachdeva Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Kishan Sachdeva vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Aug 26, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1045342

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
FERA

Case Summary

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

FERA

Key legal issue
FERA

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kishan Sachdeva

Advocate Shri. Saurabh Sharma

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

m.cr.c.no.9177/2013 26.08.2013 shri saurabh sharma, counsel for the petitioner. shri g.s.thakur, panel lawyer for the respondent/state. heard on admission. the facts of the case, in short is that, ashok kumar, rajkumar, rajesh kumar and mahesh kumar son of shrichandra manuramani has initiated a proceeding under section 145 of cr.p.c.against one ramchandra sachdev and others and a preliminary order has been passed. thereafter, the respondent ramchandra moved an application under section 146 of cr.p.c.to appoint a receiver. thereafter, the petitioner sent a complaint to the s.d.m., s.p.katni and s.h.o.madhav nagar, katni to get the order executed and since nothing has been done therefore, the present petition has been filed. after considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the present petition is misconceived. the petitioner was the respondent in the proceedings under section 145 of cr.p.c.pending before the s.d.m.katni and therefore, he could not get any relief in his favour. in the proceedings under section 145 of cr.p.c.an arbitrarily order cannot be passed by the concerned s.d.m.by moving such an application before the concerned s.d.m.or s.p.and the applicant cannot get anything in the case. consequently, there is no ground by which the inherent power under section 482 of cr.p.c.may be exercised. the applicant is directed to move an application before the s.d.m.concerned, if he wants to get any relief from him. with the aforesaid directions, the present petition under section 482 of cr.p.c.is hereby disposed off. (n.k.gupta) judge pnkj

Full Judgment

M.Cr.C.No.9177/2013 26.08.2013 Shri Saurabh Sharma, counsel for the petitioner.

Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on admission.

The facts of the case, in short is that, Ashok kumar, Rajkumar, Rajesh Kumar and Mahesh Kumar son of Shrichandra Manuramani has initiated a proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C.against one Ramchandra Sachdev and others and a preliminary order has been passed.

Thereafter, the respondent Ramchandra moved an application under Section 146 of Cr.P.C.to appoint a receiver.

Thereafter, the petitioner sent a complaint to the S.D.M., S.P.Katni and S.H.O.Madhav Nagar, Katni to get the order executed and since nothing has been done therefore, the present petition has been filed.

After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the present petition is misconceived.

The petitioner was the respondent in the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C.pending before the S.D.M.Katni and therefore, he could not get any relief in his favour.

In the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C.an arbitrarily order cannot be passed by the concerned S.D.M.by moving such an application before the concerned S.D.M.or S.P.and the applicant cannot get anything in the case.

Consequently, there is no ground by which the inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.may be exercised.

The applicant is directed to move an application before the S.D.M.concerned, if he wants to get any relief from him.

With the aforesaid directions, the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.is hereby disposed off.

(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial