Madhya Pradesh Court November 2011 Judgments
Uday Narayan Singh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-2011
U.C. Maheshwari, J. 1. The applicant/accused has filed this revision under section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C, being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 15.03.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Singroli in S.T.No.3/11 framing the charge against him and the co-accused for the offence of section 306 of the IPC. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on 17.8.2010 on receiving the information at Police Station, Baidhan from the informer, namely, Guddu Singh regarding unnatural death of Narendra Singh on the railway track, a marg intimation No.99/10 under section 174 of the Cr.P.C was registered. In the course of its inquiry, it was revealed that the deceased being employee of the present applicant, was working at his site near the railway track as Watchman along with one Motilal and before aforesaid unnatural death of Narendra Singh, on account of some theft at the aforesaid site of the applicant, Narendra Singh was subjected to beating with abuses with criminal intimidation by...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kori and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
G.D. SAXENA, J. (1) This revision petition under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, has been preferred against an order dated 29th September, 2011 in Sessions Case No.61/08 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Sironj, dismissing thereby the application of the petitioners-accused for holding them as juveniles. (2) The case of the petitioners are that during trial, the petitioners filed the application stating that on the date of incident, i.e., 8th October, 2007, they were below 18 years of age, hence they being juveniles it was requested that their case be referred to the Juvenile Justice Court for holding an inquiry with regard to determination of their age and trial before the board. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence of the petitioners filed with the application and the evidence collected during investigation, concluded that the petitioners were not juveniles, hence, this revision. (3) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the lear...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
G.D. Saxena, J. (1) This revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 preferred by the petitioner/accused is directed against an order dated 13th July 2011 in Special Sessions Case No. 111/2009 by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Bhind, rejecting thereby prayer of the accused that he is a Juvenile and below 18 years of age, at the time of commission of offence. (2) Brief facts, just for the decision of this case are that the petitioner was shown as accused in case Crime No. 30/2009 registered by the Police Station Endori, district Bhind. The investigation was conducted by the CBI and after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the criminal court. After committal, the trial commenced before the Special Judge Bhind. As per the Investigating Agency, the age of the accused/petitioner was above 18 years and therefore he was arrested and committed in the Judicial custody. The petitioner by filling an application contended that at the time of incide...
Tag this Judgment!Baldev Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
The petitioner before this Court, a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe and who also belongs to the weaker section of the society, has filed this present petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to grant the petitioner the Insurance amount on account of death of his wife during pregnancy. Petitioner has enclosed a certificate issued by the Sarpanch, Shujalpur as Annexure P/1 dt. 18/5/07 which certifies that the petitioner is a Tribal and his name finds in the list of person belonging to Below Poverty Line. It has been further stated in the writ petition that the petitioner's wife, as she was expecting a child, was brought for delivery to the Primary Health Centre, Polay Kalan, Distt. Shajapur, however, the Doctors at the Primary Health Centre refused to admit the lady and she was brought to MY Hospital, Indore on 14/8/06. It has been further stated that the petitioner's wife expired on 19/8/06 and a certificate was issued by the Mun...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rehman Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
G.D. Saxena, J. (1) This revision petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner-accused being aggrieved by an order dated 19th August 2011 in Sessions Case No. 25/11by the First Additional Sessions Judge Guna (M.P.), framing thereby charges against him for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of I.P.C. (2) The facts necessary for the disposal of this revision are that on 6/12/10 at Town of Raghogarh, District Guna, one Deepak Soni, s/o Babulal Soni was reported to be missing from his house. Said report was recorded in Rojnamcha of the police Station. During search on 8/12/10, the dead body of Deepak Soni in a gunny beg was found under beneath of culvert of ITI at Raghogarh. Accordingly, a Marg report was registered. During inquiry, it is gathered that the petitioner alongwith other accused persons committed murder of missing Deepak Soni and caused the evidence of offence to be disappeared with an intention to suppress the re...
Tag this Judgment!Mohar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
G.D. Saxena, J. (1) This revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 preferred by the petitioner/accused is directed against an order dated 21st October 2011 in Sessions Case No. 315/01 by the Third Additional Sessions Judge Morena (M.P.), rejecting thereby an application filed under section 233 of Cr.P.C. by the accused for re-calling Jai Singh Sikarwar (PW-3) as defence witness in the said Sessions trial. (2) The brief facts, just for the decision of this case are that in Sessions Case No. 315/01 pending before the Third Additional Sessions Judge Morena against petitioner/accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. for causing dowry death of Smt. Suman and/or alternatively for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. for causing murder of Smt. Suman. During trial of the said case, Jai Singh Sikarwar (PW-3), father of the deceased and Smt. Shashi Sikarwar (PW-6), mother of the deceased were examined as prosec...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Shahid Qureshi Vs. State of M.P. and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-2011
The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order of externment dt. 4/1/2011 as well as the order passed by the Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that he is a resident of Ujjain and a report was submitted by the Superintendent of Police for initiating action under the MP Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 to the District Magistrate and thereafter a show cause notice was issued on 6/1/2010. Petitioner has further stated that he submitted a reply to the show cause notice and also informed the authorities that no offence was registered against the petitioner after 2009 and in 2009 an offence u/S. 323 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued before this Court that the District Magistrate without recording any evidence and without considering the reply of the petitioner has passed an order of externment a...
Tag this Judgment!Amol Chavhan Vs. Smt. Jyoti Chavhan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-2011
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by order passed by the Court below (Annexure P-6) dated 2/9/2011. By this order the Court below has allowed the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act and directed for medical examination of the present petitioner before the medical board to ascertain whether the petitioner is impotent or not? 2. Shri Aniket Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as against the application preferred by petitioner's wife under Section 45 of the Evidence Act (Annexure P-3), the present petitioner filed a reply/application and made a counter request for medical test of the wife as well. The Court below by Annexure P-6 has allowed the application of wife and rejected the application of present petitioner on the ground that present petitioner is neither applicant/plaintiff before the Court below nor he has made any allegations against his wife by filing any petition. The Court below opined that the basic controversy can be resolved if the petitioner is...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›