Madhya Pradesh Court February 2010 Judgments

Rajkumar Vs. Saroj (Smt.)

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Reported in: 2010(2)MPHT355

ORDERPiyush Mathur, J.1. This is a Civil Revision, preferred against an order passed in MJC No. 8/2009 on date 27-1-2010 by the District Judge, Vidisha in relation to an application preferred under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the respondent/wife, seeking Transfer of Divorce Petition from Basoda to Vidisha which has been allowed by the District Judge.2. The facts of the case reveal that a petition, preferred under Section 125 of Cr.PC on behalf of the wife, seeking maintenance from her husband was disposed of by the Competent Criminal Court, situated at Vidisha and another proceeding initiated on behalf of the daughter of the applicant Rajkumar is pending under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at Vidisha and an independent petition preferred by the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce from his wife, is pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Basoda, District Vidisha bearing H.M. Case No. 20-A/2009.3. This application...

Kodulal @ Laxman Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Sushma Shrivastava, J.1. Appellant has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and order of sentence passed by Sessions Judge, Damoh in S.T. No. 112/99, decided on 29.09.2000.2. Appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC for committing murder of his wife Meera @ Mayarani and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 300/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for three months, by the impugned judgment.3. According to prosecution, on 4.11.98 about 10 'O'clock in the morning at village Umrav, appellant was cutting black plum tree standing in front of his house, which was objected to by his wife Meera @ Mayarani (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'). This enraged the appellant and he threatened his wife that he would cut and kill her. Thereafter appellant walked away towards the village and asked his wife to cook food, as he wanted to go to Bandakpur. When Meera @ Mayarani was cooking food inside her dwelling hut, appellant came there, began taking meals an...

Sheikh Sayeed S/O Sheikh Shareef and Sheikh Anees Son of Sheikh Haneef ...

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Rakesh Saksena, J.1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of both the above appeals, since both the appeals arise out of the common impugned judgment.2. Appellants Sheikh Sayeed, Sheikh Anees and Kishore have filed the above appeals against the judgment dated 6th May, 2000 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) and Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Special Case No. 36/99 convicting them under Sections 302, 397 read with Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentencing them to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5000/-, rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 3000/- and imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- on each respectively. Appellant Rev Singh of Criminal Appeal No. 2567/2000 has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5000/-. Though appellants Sheikh Say...

Ganesh Ram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Reported in: 2010(2)MPHT350

S.S. Dwivedi, J.1. The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.PC feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 9-8-1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda District Vidisha in Session Trial No. 177/1998, whereby the appellant has been found guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that admittedly the appellant/ accused is the husband of the deceased Pinki. On 17-8-98 at about 5 p.m. at Village Bedankhedi, it is alleged that some quarrel took place in between the deceased Pinki and the appellant/accused, due to which, it is further alleged that appellant/accused poured kerosene on the body of the deceased Pinki and thereafter, set her on fire. Deceased Pinki was admitted in the hospital in the burnt condition where Dr. R.K. Jain examined the burnt lady Pinki and found 50 to 55 per cent superficial burn on the body. The matt...

Sohanlal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Sushma Shrivastava, J.1. Appellant has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and order of sentence passed by Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S.T. No. 230/04, decided on 6.04.2005.2. Appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default further imprisonment for six months, by the impugned judgment.3. As per prosecution case, Radhabai, the daughter of deceased Monabai (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased) was married to one Balram, a resident of Kainchi-Chhola, Bhopal. Appellant Sohanlal is the brother of Balram. Three days prior to the occurrence, Radhabai had given birth to a male child. On 6.6.04, her husband sent a telephonic message to the parents of Radhabai at Pushpanagar, Bhopal inviting them for feeding Radhabai on the 3rd day after her delivery. Thereupon deceased Monabai, the mother of Radhabai alongwith her younger daughter Kavita had gone to the place of Radhabai at Kainchi-Chhola, Bhopal at abo...

Gulam @ Farukh Son of Abdul Majid Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Through ...

Court: Madhya Pradesh

R.C. Mishra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment-dated 05.10.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat in S.T. No. 106/1995 whereby the appellant, though charged with the offences under Sections 456 and 376 of the IPC, was convicted under Section 451 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- and in default, to suffer R.I. for 1 month.2. The prosecution story, in short, may be narrated as under-(i) On 21.12.1994, Gaurishankar (PW2) had gone to Joudapat leaving his wife viz. the prosecutrix (PW1) and 8-year old son namely Kuldeep (PW6) at his house situated in village Kayadi. At about 6 p.m., the appellant came there and after ascertaining that Gaurishankar was not at home, asked Kuldeep to leave the place. Accordingly, Kuldeep proceeded towards his grandfather's house located in the same vicinity. The appellant then dragged the prosecutrix into inner room of the house and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with he...

Rajendra Kumar Chaudha and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. Ayaz Ahmad Khan and ors. ...

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Reported in: 2010(2)MPHT447

ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. The writ appeals have been preferred as against the order passed by Single Bench remitting the case to the Competent Authority to make the recommendations to the State Government in accordance with Rule 7 of the Notary Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').2. The brief facts are that by Notification dated 12-10-2007,11 posts of Notary were notified for Katni District which include 4 posts for Katni, 1 for Dheemarkheda, 2 for Bohriband, 1 for Rithi, 2 for Badwara and 1 for Barhi. The District Judge was asked by the State Government to send a panel along with the memorial of eligible local Advocates in accordance with Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules. 77 candidates had filed the applications from Katni, 5 from Dheemarkheda, 9 from Bohriband, 10 from Rithi, 14 from Badwara and 9 from Barhi.3. The District Judge forwarded the list on 25-1-2008 to the Principal Secretary of the Law and Legislative Department of State Government. The State Government approved ...

Ramlakhan and anr. Vs. State of M.P.

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Reported in: 2010(2)MPHT383

ORDERIndrani Datta, J.1. With the consent of parties, matter is finally heard.2. Applicants have filed this revision petition under Section 397/401, Cr.PC against the order dated 15-1-2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sabalgarh in S.T. No. 295/2005 whereby cognizance of offence under Sections 307,452,294,147,148,149 and 459, IPC has been taken against the applicants on the basis of application filed by complainant under Section 319, Cr.PC.3. Facts in a nutshell giving rise to revision are that Sessions Trial No. 295/05 is pending against accused persons namely Ramveer, Ramcharan, Pappad, Lala, Chandan Singh, Rashid Khan, Lallu, Ramprakash, Vinod and Dilip in connection with Crime No. 251/04. In that case, complainant Azad Khan has been examined as P.W. 1. During trial, he gave statement that applicants also took part in incidence. After completion of examination-in-chief of complainant, an application was filed under Section 319, Cr.PC by complainant for taking cogn...

Bapulal and Six ors. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Sushma Shrivastava, J.1. Appellants have preferred this appeal challenging their conviction and order of sentence passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in S.T. No. 23/95, decided on 28.10.98.2. Appellants have been convicted under Section 148, 324/149 of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months, and rigorous imprisonment for two and half years with fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the respective offences. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. Appellants are also convicted under Section 341 of IPC and sentenced to fine of Rs. 300/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for seven days by the impugned judgment.3. As per prosecution case, on 27.9.94 about 2 'O'clock in the noon at village Uttar-Guha, when complainant Jagannath Singh was returning from the field with a bundle of grass and reached near the hut of Gopi Chamar, appellant ...

Pillu @ Prahlad and anr. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Sushma Shrivastava, J.1. Appellants have preferred this appeal challenging their conviction and order of sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in S.T. No. 26/2000, decided on 16.4.2001.2. Appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC for committing murder of Sanju @ Sanjay and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/- each, in default rigorous imprisonment for six months, by the impugned judgment.3. As per prosecution case, on 29.9.99 about 10 'O'clock at night at Gotegaon when complainant Shankar was standing on the betel shop of deceased Sanjay Jain (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), appellants Pillu @ Prahlad and Guddu @ Rajesh came there and asked the deceased not to give evidence in court in fan case. When deceased declined to do so, appellants began hurling abuses. On oppugnation, appellant Guddu @ Rajesh pulled deceased Sanju out of his betel shop by holding his collar, threw him on the ground and exhorted to kill him. Then ap...