Madhya Pradesh Court April 2011 Judgments
Smt. Neetu Tiwari. Vs. Satya Mishra and Three Others
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!Ramnarayan Yadav. Vs. Ratnakar Singh Chauhan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
1. This Intra-Court Appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 arises from the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14-2-2011 in W.P.No. 9432/2009 dismissing the appellant's petition. 2. It appears that the appellant was appointed as Anganwadi Karyakarta pursuant to the resolution of the Gram Sabha, Mahudar, dated 28-1-2003. The appellant thereafter joined on the aforesaid post on 19-2-2004. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the respondents No. 1 and 2 challenged the appointment of the appellant on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta by filing an appeal against the order of the Gram Sabha before the Collector, Satna, who found that the resolution for appointment of the appellant was not passed by the Gram Sabha and, therefore, quashed the same vide order dated 18-2-2005. 3. The revision filed by the appellant against the order of the Collector, Satna was also dismissed and the order dated 18-2-2005 passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Mathur Vs. State of M.P and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
(1). Being aggrieved by the order dated 15 th November 2010, passed on an unregistered Complaint Case No.00/2010, preferred by the respondent No.2-Lokendra, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shivpuri (M.P.), thereby directing the In-charge Inspector of the Police Station Shivpuri, under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to lodge the FIR and after investigation in the matter submit the report. (2) Facts ,in brief, as appear from the petition, are that the petitioner, r/o Village Berad, Tahsil Pohari was working as Panchayat Karmi/Panchayat Secretary in the Grampanchayat Goverdhan, Tahsil Pohari District Shivpuri (M.P.). For his long absence due to his involvement in some other criminal case, by Resolution dated 14 th November 2004, passed by the Village Panchayat Gowardhan, the petitioner was removed from services of Panchayat-karmi/Panchayat Secy. and in his place respondent No.2-Lokendra was appointed. The said Resolution was challenged by filin...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar MishrA. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
1. Shri R.S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. 2. Heard on the question of admission. 3. In the instant petition filed as a public interest litigation grievances agitated by the petitioner are that he is an agriculturist and a member of Deendayal Antyodaya Samiti, Gram Panchayat Tendua, Janpad Panchayat, Gangeo, District, Rewa. The Government of India launched a scheme, namely, Nirmal Gram Purushkar in order to promote sanitation coverage to ensure better health and quality of life of the people in rural areas. For proper implementation the Government of India has floated an incentive scheme for&nbs...
Tag this Judgment!Surya Prakash ShuklA. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
1. The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 454 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Being aggrieved by order of confiscation of 12 bore double barrel gun and riffle of 315 bore passed in judgment dated 16.10.2006 in Special Case No. 1/2006 by Special Judge appointed under M.P. Dacoitee and Kidnapping Affected Area Act. 2. Facts in short giving rise this appeal are that four persons Anmol Dwivedi, Ram Karan Yadav, Subran @ Sobran and Manoj Yadav have been arrested by P.S. Dhabora, District Rewa and after investigation they have been prosecuted under Section 399/402 of IPC and 11/13 of M.P. Dacoitee and Kidnapping Affected Area Act. It is alleged that a 12 bore double barrel gun and two riffles of 315 bore alongwith country made pistol and motor-cycles have been seized from the aforesaid persons. 3. On appraisal of evidence on record in Special Case No. 1/2006, learned Special Judge acquitted the aforesaid accused persons under Section 399/402 of IPC and 11/13 of M.P. Dacoitee ...
Tag this Judgment!Raju Yadav and anr. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
1. Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge Damoh has passed the impugned judgment dated 7/3/1995 in Sessions Trial No. 125/91 whereby appellants have been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 457 and 392 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of Rs.500/- and rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and fine of Rs.100/-, with default stipulations. 2. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Prosecution case in short is that on 20/7/1991 at about 7.50 p.m., when complainant Seetabai (PW6) was watching television alongwith her brother-in-law Atmaram (PW12) and Rajeshwari (PW13), at that time somebody knocked the back door of her house but she has not opened the door. Thereafter, three persons entered into the house by jumping the back wall of her house. One of them caught hold of her and demanded the key of Almirah at the point of co...
Tag this Judgment!Rajiv Chouksey. Vs. Smt.Kirti Chouksey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
1. None for for appellant. 2. Shri D.K.Sharma, Counsel for respondent. 3. This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 6.2.2006 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad in Hindu Marriage Case No.27-A/05 by which a suit filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed. 4. Facts, in short. of the case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 27.6.1997 at Hoshangabad. From the wedlock, there is a son aged 4 years who is with the respondent. The allegations in the plaint are that respondent is of unsound and by concealing this fact, marriage was solemnised. The respondent remained with the appellant for two days after the marriage but during this period, she had not talked to any person and at second time when she came to in-laws' house, she cut her vains of hands with a razor blade. She was treated by the doctor and thereafter she returned back to her parents house. At second time, she remained for 10 to 15 d...
Tag this Judgment!Anmol Dwivedi. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
1. The appellant has preferred these appeals against the impugned judgment and findings dated 16/10/2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, Rewa in Special Case No. 01/2006 whereby appellant has been convicted under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 1½ years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulations. 2. The aforesaid appeals are arises out of the same judgment and findings, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Prosecution case in short is that on 3/2/2005 N.P. Singh (PW7), Incharge of Police Station Dhabaura,District Rewa received secret information that at 10.25p.m. 5-6 miscreants having armed making conspiracy for dacoity. On the basis of secret information, N.P. Singh rushed to the spot alongwith police force, surrounded the miscreants. During this process, one of the co-accused Chunnu @ Dhanua Patel @ Pandey fled away but appellant and their two other co-accused Ramkaran Yadav and Manoj Yadav were caught ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramnarayan Soni Vs. Ajay and State of M.P
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
(1). By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner challenged the entire proceedings in connection with Criminal Complaint Case No. 329/08 pending before The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aron District Guna (MP). (2) The facts, in brief, as shown in the complaint filed before the Criminal Court at Aron, is that the daughter of petitioner-accused Ramnarayan was married to Ajay Kumar Soni r/o Aron District Guna. After sometime of marriage, the relations between the couple became strained on account of illegal demand of dowry by the inlaws family. Consequently, wife Manisha left her matrimonial house and lived in the house of her parents at Sihore (M.P.). Several criminal, maintenance and matrimonial proceedings initiated which are pending before the courts. The respondent No.1 filed the complaint dated 4 th April 2008 before the Criminal court stating that his father-in -law (i.e.,the petitioner herein) who was in service ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Singh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
1. Being aggrieved by order dated 9 th August, 2010 passed in Sessions Case No.152/2010 by the Third additional Sessions Judge Vidisha (M.P.), thereby the trial Judge framed the charges against petitioner for commission of offence under Section 467, 468, 471 and Section 199 of I.P.C., the present petition has been preferred. (2) The facts , in nutshell as unfolded in the record of trial Court, are that on 28 th January 2010, the petitioner appeared before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Vidisha (M.P.) as surety in favour of accused person Raj Bahadur Singh Chauhan @ Golu in connection with Crime No.69/10 registered against the accused for committing an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. While acting as surety for the the accused, the petitioner at the time of giving bail, filed his affidavit, bail declaration form and title document of the Land Record Right Book "Bhu Adhikar Rin Pustaka" before the court. On enquiry by the court concerned, it is transpired that the surety...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »