Madhya Pradesh Court January 2012 Judgments

Tarun Malkapurkar Vs. Jitendra Agrawal and Others

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Being aggrieved by the order dated 21.4.2011 passed by 13th Civil Judge Class II, Indore in Civil Suit No.69-A/2011, whereby application filed by the respondents No.1,4,5 and 6 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was allowed and the petitioner was directed to value the suit and pay the Court fees as per valuation of the suit, present petition has been filed. Short facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction alleging that respondent No.1 is the person, who has prepared a forged power of attorney on 17.10.2008. It was alleged that respondents No.3 to 6 are the persons, who have prepared the forged documents. It was alleged that vide sale deed dated 13.2.2003 petitioner purchased the suit property from Kantabai W/o Modiram and Pankaj S/o Modiram through Power of Attorney Dharshanlal. It was alleged that petitioner was in occupation of the land from the time of purchase. It was alleged that petitioner took a loan from respondents No.1,4 and...

Smt. Narmada Pathak Vs. State of M.P.

Court: Madhya Pradesh

1. Brief facts necessary for resolving the controversy are as under:- 2. The petitioner is a widow of deceased Pramod Pathak, who was allegedly killed by accused Narayan Pathak, his own brother. The petitioner entered the witness box and deposed her statement on 12.9.2011 (Annexure P-2). In the statement, the petitioner stated that Santosh, Shivkumar and petitioner's daughter came and informed her that Pramod (husband) was killed by Narayan (accused). Thereafter, the prosecution preferred an application dated 26.9.2011 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-3). In the said application, it is prayed that Santosh, Shivkumar and Sneha (daughter of petitioner) be summoned for deposition of their statements in view of petitioner's statement Annexure P-2. This was objected by the other side. 3. Shri Ankit Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on AIR 1999 SC 2292 (Rajendra Prasad Vs. Narcotic Cell through its Officer-in-charge, Delhi) and 2011 (2) Crimes 161(Ori.) (Stat...

K.K. Shrivastava Vs. Special Police Establishment Lokayukt Gwalior

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Reported in: 2012CrLJ2189

G.D. Saxena, J. (1) By preferring the aforesaid petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners, who are public servants, have approached this Court seeking order(s) setting aside and quashing the First Information Report, which has resulted into registration of Crime No.31/07 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471,420 and 120-B of I.P.C. read with Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 against them. Both the petitioners, namely, K.K. Shrivastava and R.N. Karaiya were appointed originally in the Public Health Engineering Department and subsequently were sent on deputation to the Municipal Corpn., on the posts of Assistant Engineers. At the relevant time, they were holding additional charge of Executive Engineers in the Maintenance Div. No.1. Gwalior. The petitioner Ajaya Pandvia at the relevant time was working as Assistant Engineer in Public Health Engineering under Municipal Corporation Gwalior whereas petitioner R.B. Shrivastava was w...

Sunderlal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

U.C. Maheshwari, J. 1. This appeal is directed by the appellant under section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the judgment dated 7.4.1999 passed by the Special Judge, Chhindwara (constituted under the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short `the Act') in Special case No.52/95 whereby he has been convicted under section 3(1)(x) of the Act with a direction to undergo for RI six months with fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of depositing the fine, further RI 1 month has been awarded. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on dated 5.7.95 at about 21.35 in the night, the complainant Rajendra Kumar Chouria (Chamar) lodged the FIR as Crime No.303/95 at P.S. Junardeo contending that at about 8 O' Clock in the evening of 5.7.95, he accompanied with his friends, namely, Shyam, Ramesh and Badrudeen Quereshi was standing in front of Rampura Cycle Shop. At the same time, appellant, who was posted as Junior Engineer in the Madhya Pradesh Ele...

Omprakash Thakur Vs. Niranjanlal and Another

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Being aggrieved by the order dated 21/10/2011 passed by Civil Judge class-I, Sailana, District Ratlam in civil suit NO.1-A/ 11 whereby the objections raised by the petitioner about admissibility of the documents Annexures A/3 to A/5 were rejected, the present petition has been filed. Short facts of the case are that respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific performance alleging that suit property was sold by the petitioner to respondent No.1 orally. Suit was contested by the petitioner. At the stage of evidence, 3 documents were filed by the respondent No.1 in evidence, upon which objection was raised by the petitioner about admissibility of the document. The objections were rejected, against which the present petition has been filed. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that initially the case of respondent No.1 was that suit property was sold by the petitioner to respondent No.1 orally. Thereafter at the stage of evidence it was alleged that respondent NO.1 has leased out the suit ...

Allahbelli Vs. Smt. Khatoon Bi and Another

Court: Madhya Pradesh

1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 01/10/2010 passed by XVIII Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore in civil suit No.136-A/2010 whereby application filed by the respondent No.2 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was allowed and the petitioner was directed to correct the valuation and pay the proper court-fee, present petition has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the petitioner alleging that the petitioner is having 7/6 share in the suit property while respondent No.1 is having 1/8 share. The suit was valued as Rs.1,120/- and the court-fee of Rs.500/- was paid for declaration and Rs.120/- was paid for permanent injunction totalling Rs.620/-. An application was filed by the respondent No.2 wherein it was alleged that suit has not been properly valued and improper court-fee has been paid. It was prayed that petitioner be directed to value the suit correctly and pay the court-fee appropriately. After hearing the parties learne...

Santosh Sullere and Another Vs. Smt. Saroj Sullere

Court: Madhya Pradesh

ORDER: 1. The subject matter of challenge in this revision is the order dated 28.10.2010 passed by First Additional District Judge, Chhatarpur in M.A. No.01/10 whereby the petitioners’ appeal under Section 384 of the Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the order-dated 15.04.2010 passed by Third Civil Judge Class I, Chhatarpur in Succession Case No.13/08, was dismissed and revocation of succession certificate granted to them and the direction for issuance of the certificate in favour of the respondent were affirmed. 2. Ramdas Sullere, who died on 28.12.2003 at Kulpahar Distt. Mahoba (U.P.), was superannuated on 31.07.2003 from the post of Peon in the Tahsil Office at Chhatarpur. The respondent claims to be his legally-wedded wife whereas petitioner no.1, the husband of petitioner no.2, is the son of his nephew namely Harsahay. 3. While asserting that – (i) by way of application-dated 29.08.2002 addressed to the Tahsildar, the decea...

Smt. Ranjeet Kaur Vs. Surendra Singh Gill

Court: Madhya Pradesh

G.D. Saxena, J. (1) This Appeal is by the appellant-wife against the Judgment dated 25th September, 2010 in C.S.No.26A/10 of the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha (M.P.), granting a decree of divorce to the respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. (2) The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the wife, i.e., the appellant herein, had deserted the respondent and thereby the matrimonial home since September, 1995. It is stated that the marriage was solemnised on 5th May, 1995 as per Hindu (Sikh rights) religion. On or before marriage, the appellant-wife was in a job (O.A. Grade III in District Industry Centre), Vidisha whereas the respondent-husband was working as Civil Engineer in a private Sector at Gwalior M.P. The marriage was duly consummated and one son, namely, Sparsh was born out of their wedlock, who is at prese...

Uttam Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 25/3/1996 passed by Special Judge, Jabalpur in Special Case no. 30/1995 convicted the appellant under section 376 IPC and sentenced to 7 years R.I and Rs.1000/- fine and convicted under section 366 IPC and sentenced to 3 years R.I and Rs.1000/- fine. 2. Facts of the case, in short, are that on 21/02/1995 prosecutrix (PW-1) aged about 15 years, was taken by the appellant promising her to marry. They stayed in a hotel at Pipariya in the night. Thereafter they lived together for about a month at various places. During aforesaid period prosecutrix was subjected to rape and intercourse. 3. On 29/03/1995 at about 5.00 P.M prosecutrix leaving appellant came back to house of in-law of her brother and then to her parent's house and lodged FIR Ex.P-1 at police station Chargawan. A case at crime no. 40/1995 under section 363,366, 376 IPC and under section 3(1) (11), The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities...

Baliraj Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

M.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. The appeal has been preferred by appellant feeling aggrieved against the judgment dated 5.4.1994, delivered by the then 2nd Addl.Sessions Judge, Sidhi in Sessions Trial No. 32/92 convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302/34 of IPC for committing murder of Mangalsingh and sentencing him to life imprisonment. 2. Undisputedly, appellant no.2 Baij Nath Singh died as such his name was deleted from the array of appellants as per Order dated 24.8.09 passed by this Court, so this appeal stands abated against him. 3. In nut shell, the prosecution story is that on 6.1.92 at 19.30 O’clock Hirasingh Gond (PW.7) lodged the report to the effect that around 5 PM when he was returning to village after carrying fuel wood from jungle, on the way where the house of Shivdhari was situated, Shivdhari shouted to him that some incident has occurred in his house. When Hirasingh reached his house, his wife told him that his brother Mangalsingh (since deceased) had gone to th...