Dinesh Jaiswal Vs. Poorankumar Adwani

Dinesh Jaiswal vs Poorankumar Adwani

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Sep 19, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1049035

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1049035
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Sep 19, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dinesh Jaiswal

Respondent

Poorankumar Adwani

Excerpt

.....goswami, r/o. ward no.32, shantinagar, moti talab road, balaghat (m.p.) 2 cr.r.no.145/2012 6. state of madhya pradesh through p.s.kotwali, balaghat, district balaghat --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- applicant by shri d.d.bhargava, advocate. respondent no.1 to 3 by shri sankalp kochar, advocate. respondent no.6-state by shri anubhav jain, public prosecutor. none for respondents no.5 and 6, though served. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- order (19.09.2013) this revision application under section 397/401 of cr pc has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 15.11.2011 passed by learned additional judge to firs.additional sessions judge, balaghat in criminal revision no.102/2009 whereby revision application of respondent no.1 to 5 was allowed and they were discharged.”2. on bare perusal of the order of chief judicial magistrate, balaghat dated 03.07.2009 it is gathered that said court has directed the station house in-charge kotwali, district balaghat to register a case under sections 417, 423, 424/34 of ipc against these respondents by exercising the power under section 156(3) of cr pc. 3 cr.r.no.145/2012 3. on going through the impugned order passed by learned additional sessions judge, i find that he has not committed any error in discharging the respondent no.1 to 5 for the simple reason that because all the offence under which case has been registered by respondent no.6 are non-cognizable.”4. this revision application is accordingly dismissed. (a.k.shrivastava) judge 19.09.2013 ss

Full Judgment

1 Cr.R.No.145/2012 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K.SHRIVASTAVA CRIMINAL REVISION NO.145/2012 APPLICANT : Dinesh Jaiswal, S/o.

Babulal Jaiswal, R/o.

Ward No.32, Motinagar, Police Station Kotwali, Tehsil and District Balaghat (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENTS:

Poornkumar Adwani S/o.

Jethanand Adwani, R/o.

Ward No.32, Motinagar, Police Station Kotwali, Tehsil and District Balaghat (M.P.) 2.

Mahendra Surana, S/o.

Dhanraj Surana, R/o.

Ward No.6, Balaghat, Police Station Kotwali, Tehsil and District Balaghat (M.P.3.

Dr.Rishab Jain, S/o.

Motilal Jain, R/o.

Ward No.9, Gujari Chowk, Balaghat, P.S.Kotwali, Tehsil and District Balaghat (M.P.) 4.

KIrti Kumar Lithare, S/o.

Shankarlal, R/o.

Village Aarwalajhari, P.S.Kotwali, Balaghat, Tehsil and District Balaghat (M.P.) 5.

Ganesh Giri Goswami, S/o.

Shri Krishnagiri Goswami, R/o.

Ward No.32, Shantinagar, Moti Talab Road, Balaghat (M.P.) 2 Cr.R.No.145/2012 6.

State of Madhya Pradesh Through P.S.Kotwali, Balaghat, District Balaghat --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant by Shri D.D.Bhargava, Advocate.

Respondent No.1 to 3 by Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate.

Respondent no.6-State by Shri Anubhav Jain, Public Prosecutor.

None for respondents no.5 and 6, though served.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER

(19.09.2013) This revision application under Section 397/401 of Cr PC has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 15.11.2011 passed by learned Additional Judge to FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat in Criminal Revision No.102/2009 whereby revision application of respondent no.1 to 5 was allowed and they were discharged.”

2. On bare perusal of the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balaghat dated 03.07.2009 it is gathered that said Court has directed the Station House In-charge Kotwali, District Balaghat to register a case under Sections 417, 423, 424/34 of IPC against these respondents by exercising the power under Section 156(3) of Cr PC.

3 Cr.R.No.145/2012 3.

On going through the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, I find that he has not committed any error in discharging the respondent no.1 to 5 for the simple reason that because all the offence under which case has been registered by respondent no.6 are non-cognizable.”

4. This revision application is accordingly dismissed.

(A.K.Shrivastava) Judge 19.09.2013 SS

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Dinesh Jaiswal vs Poorankumar Adwani Same Subject Education