Madhya Pradesh Court April 2011 Judgments
U.K.Samal. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2011
1. This is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity ‘the Code’), for having the order-dated 23.03.2010 passed by Special Judge (under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act’) at Bhopal in Special Case No.1/08 rejecting the applications made by the petitioner for discharge nullified and also for quashing of the charge sheet, so far as it relates to him. 2. In that case, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 120B of the IPC and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act has been taken against the petitioner, a superannuated officer of Indian Administrative Service, and co-accused Narsingh Mandal and Prakash Chand Sethi who, at the relevant point of time, wererespectively Chairman and Deputy General Manager (Store and Purchase) of M.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”). 3. Relevant allegations, as contained in the charg...
Tag this Judgment!U.K.Samal Vs. Lokayukt Organisation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2011
1. This is a petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of :- (a) writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the Lokayukt under the M.P. Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “the Adhiniyam”) isonly a recommendatory body and not a prosecuting agency. (b) writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the entire proceedings held in file No.45/99 against the petitioner in the Lokayukt Sangathan as illegal and void ab initio. (c) writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the order, passed by Lokayukt directing the SPE for registering a case and proceeding further, as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Adhiniyam. (d) writ of certiorari for quashing the FIR leading to registration of case as Crime No.37/07 at SPE Lokayukt, Bhopal in respect of the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Nidhi Choubey. Vs. Amit Kumar Choubey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2011
1. Deficit court-fee has already been affixed by the appellant. In view of aforesaid, time period for the payment of deficit court-fee is extended till 21.4.2011, the date on which deficit court-fee was paid. 1. There is delay of one day in filing of this appeal. For the reasons stated in the application and subject to objection as may be raised by the respondent, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned. I.A.No.5362/11 is disposed of. 2. Heard on admission. 3.This appeal is admitted for final hearing. 4. Record of the trial Court be summoned. 5. Issue notice to respondent. Steps within a period of one week by R.A.D. 1. Issue notice of this application to the respondent. Steps within a period of one week by RAD. 2. Subject to hearing other side, it is directed that respondent shall not contract another marriage without seeking prior permission of this Court. 3. Appellant to serve this temporary injunction order upon the respondent as required under Order 39 rule 3 of CPC and to file...
Tag this Judgment!Dr.Smt.Shobhna Chouksey. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2011
(1). This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court to quash the FIR of Crime No. 15/09 dated 9.1.09 registered by PS-Babai, District-Hoshangabad for alleged offence punishable under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 409 of IPC for which ST No. 243/09 is pending in the Court of Ist Addl.Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad. (2) In brief, the case of petitioner is that petitioner was a Government Officer posted as Block Medical Officer at Community Health Centre, Babai. At that time, respondent no.2 Dr.Rajendra Singh was posted as CMOH in District-Hoshangabad and he was having malice and was prejudiced with the petitioner, so he has involved the petitioner in the aforesaid criminal case on the ground that under “Janani Suraksha Yojna” some cheques were issued and on enquiry it was found that the beneficiaries were fake persons, wrong entries were recorded that benefits were given to the ladies. As per FIR, some ...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Avasthi Vs. Vijay JaIn Ant
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
1. Preliminary arguments on the application filed by the applicant under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. for cancellation of anticipatory bail order dated 22.03.2011 passed in favour of the respondent No.1 heard. 2. The applicant has prayed for the cancellation of anticipatory bail order dated 22.03.2011 passed in favour of the respondent No.1 Vijay by the Court of Shri R.K.S.Gautam, A.S.J., Indore. 3. According to Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. the power of cancellation of bail is vested in the Court which granted the bail. Though the High Court and Court of Session has concurrent powers for the cancellation of bail under Section 439 (2) of the Cr.P.C. but for the cancellation of the bail the principle is that the High Court shall not ordinarily, and except under exceptional circumstances, exercise its powers under Sections 438 and 439 of the Cr.P.C. without and before the Sessions Court having concurrent jurisdiction is moved for identical relief. 4. In the case of Smt. Manisha Neema V/...
Tag this Judgment!Parilal and ors.. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
1. Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 28.9.2001 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Multai District Betul in Sessions Trial No.156/2000 convicting the appellants under sections 302/34 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for 2 years on each count, respectively. 2. In short, prosecution case is that complainant Nathuram (PW-14) lodged first information report Ex.P/13 that his Sadu Bhai (husband of sister-in-law) Sunderlal (deceased) had come to his house as a guest. On 20.5.2000, in the evening his daughter Sunita, who had gone to the house of accused Parilal, came to him and informed that Parilal rebuked her as to why she did not come earlier. Sunderlal went to the house of Parilal, who was living in the neighbourhood, to admonish him. Hearing altercation between them, he went there to intervene. He saw that suddenly Parilal dealt a knife blow in the abdomen...
Tag this Judgment!Devi Shakuntalal Thakral Charitable Foundation. Vs. the Asstt. Commiss ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
1. Petitioner sought following relief : “7.1 To direct the respondent no.3 to decide the stay applications of the petitioner. 7.2 To direct respondent no.3 to hear the appeals of the petitioner for the AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 expeditiously; & 7.3 To issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case to give relief to the petitioner.” 2. Case of the petitioner is that in the earlier assessment years 2004-05 & 2005-06, petitioner was found entitled to exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, but, in further years, the aforesaid exemption was disallowed by the assessing officer.. It is submitted that against the aforesaid orders, petitioner herein has preferred appeals before the respondent No.3 along with which the petitioner has moved application (Annexure-P/8) for stay which is pending for adjudication before the respondent No.3. It is submitted that the respondent No.3 be directed to ...
Tag this Judgment!Wasim Anwar. Vs. Smt. Rabia Begum
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
1. Shri Sanjay K.Agrawal, Counsel for appellant. 2. This appeal is directed against an order dated 21.12.2010 passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Sagar in Misc.Civil Case No.64/09 by which an application filed by the appellant under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for appellant challenged the aforesaid order on the following grounds:- (i) Appellant is Urdu teacher and is engaged on contract. (ii) The respondent is residing with her brothers who are residing in slum area while the appellant is residing in a better locality and can give a better environment to the child. 4. Facts of the case are that the child of the parties is residing with the respondent from his date of birth. There were certain disputes between the appellant and the respondent and when respondent was pregnant, appellant deserted her and since then she is residing with her mother. Appellant moved an application for divorce in the Court of Kazi, Bhopal which wa...
Tag this Judgment!Rabendra Singh. Vs. Chief Secretary Commissioner, Railway Protection F ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
1. Shri P.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the appellant. Smt. Amrit Ruprah learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This intra court appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is preferred against the order of learned Single Judge dated 16.3.2011 in Writ Petition No.3094/2011(s), whereby the interim order granted on 17.2.2011 is vacated. 3. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant was initially appointed as Constable on 12.2.2001 and after completion of the training he was posted in Railway Protection Force Sholapur (Maharashtra). 4. Thereafter, the appellant was transferred to Chief Security Commissioner Reserve Company Jabalpur and again on 30.4.2007 he was transferred to Railway Protection Force, at Jabalpur. It is alleged that the appellant was assaulted by his senior officers. The appellant thereafter made a complaint in this respect....
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Pandey. Vs. Laxmi Devi Pandey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
1. It is stated that the appellant No.4 has died on 29.9.2008 and the applicants are the legal heirs of appellant No.4 who want substitution in place of appellant No.4. As the application is not within time, applicants have filed two applications, one is under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing another application I.A.6212/09 under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC for setting aside abatement. 2. The reasons stated in the application are that the applicants were having no knowledge in respect of pendency of this appeal and only on 11.5.2009 when they received a letter from the Counsel, they became aware about the pendency of this appeal and immediately rushed and filed these applications for substitution, setting aside abatement and condonation of delay in filing the application under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC. These applications are supported by affidavits of applicant Nafees Khan. 3. Considering the reasons stated in the application and looking to the fact that no cou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »