Madhya Pradesh Court February 2012 Judgments

Ratan Tiwari and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Another

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Reported in: 2012CrLJ2050

1. The applicants have preferred an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings of the Criminal Complaint Case No.1037/2011 pending before JMFC Gadarwara and also challenged the order dated 9.7.2011 passed by JMFC Gadarwara in that case by which the complaint was registered for offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 2. Facts of the case are that on 5.7.2007 applicants were posted as Police Officers at Outpost Sali Chauka of Police Station, Gadarwara. On 5.7.2007 at about 8.00 p.m in the night one Dinesh came and started abusing to the family of one Manohar Singh in the Village Sali Chauka and also assaulted his son Sandeep @ Deepak. Uma Bai and Sadhana saved the victim Sandeep. Thereafter, Uma Bai and Sadhana went to the outpost Sali Chauka for lodging an FIR. The applicant no.1 Ratan Tiwari, who was Assistant Sub Inspector at that outpost did not lodge a FIR in a regular manner and no medical investigation was directed. Due to activity...

State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Kalli and Others

Court: Madhya Pradesh

G.D. Saxena, J. 1. The aforesaid two Criminal Appeals and Capital Sentence Reference arise out of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 9th May, 2011 rendered in Special Sessions Trial No. 61/2010 by the Special Judge (Dacoity), Dabra, district Gwalior. Since the judgment and order challenged in these criminal appeals is one and the same which is the subject matter of the Capital Sentence Reference made by the learned trial Judge, all the appeals and the reference are herewith, taken up together for disposal. (2) The appellants-accused Kalli @ Gopal, Sonu @ Sunil and Hariom stood their trial on the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 460, 302/34, 397/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 13 of the MPDVPK Act whereas appellants-accused Veeru and Virendra stood their trial on the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 392/120-B of I.P.C. read with Section 13 of the MPDVPK Act before the Special Judge and they were convicted and sentenced as...

Manish Anand Vs. Ramniwas Gupta

Court: Madhya Pradesh

ORDER: 1. By filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenge is made to the order dated 14.10.2011 whereby an application preferred by the defendant/petitioner under Section 151 CPC is rejected by the Court below. The singular contention advanced by Shri Katare, learned counsel for the petitioner is that Annexure C/1 filed by the respondent is a lease deed and Court below has erred in law in only impounding the document for the purpose of proper stamping but failed to see that the said lease deed is required to be registered. Shri Katare, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on 1986 JLJ 224 (Sitaram Vs. Shankarlal) and 1992 (2) WN 26 (Khemchand Vs. Laxman Prasad Shrimali) to submit that the said document cannot be looked into for the purpose of evidence by the Court below. 2. Per contra, Shri Shri Bhardawaj submits that bare perusal of Annexue C/1 would show that it is not a lease deed, at the best it is an agreement defining terms of tenancy and by no stretc...

Kuldeep Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Reported in: 2012CrLJ2040; 2012(3)KLT28(SN)(C.No.28)

(1) Singular question involved in the present writ petition is whether an accused is entitled to engage an advocate in seizure/confiscation proceedings before the Authorised Officer under the Indian Forest Act, 1927? (2) The petitioner's request for engaging an advocate in confiscation proceedings is turned down by communicating the order dated 12th January,2012 ( Annexure P/1) which is assailed in the present petition. The petitioner submits that as per section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 read with sections 19 and 72 of the Indian Forest Act,1927 ( for brevity “1927 Act”) the petitioner is entitled to engage an advocate even in confiscation proceedings. (3) Per contra, Ms Sangita Pachori, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned order and submits that the petitioner is not entitled to engage an advocate in confiscation proceedings. (4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. (5) Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter, referred to as ...

State of Madhya Pradesh Through Ps- Gotegaon Vs. Chikki @ Chandramohan ...

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Reported in: 2012CrLJ2046

M.A. SIDDIQUI, J. 1. Since both the appeals arise out of common judgment, hence they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The State has filed Criminal Appeal No. 882/09 feeling aggrieved by the judgment delivered by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in Sessions Trial No. 63/92 on 5th December, 1994 by which above accused, and accused Mexi @ Rajendra Kumar (since dead), have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC, but all four appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 304 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC to R.I. for 6 years each. Convicted accused persons have filed Criminal Appeal No.1509/94 assailing their conviction and sentence under Section 304 IPC read  with Section 34 IPC. 3. The brief facts of the case before the trial Court were that accused formed unlawful assembly with deadly weapons, and in furtherance of their common object, committed murder of Nanhu @ Ramkumar at about 3 AM on 31.3.91. It is said ...

Dal Chand Ahirwar Vs. the State of M.P. and Others

Court: Madhya Pradesh

ORDER 1. Challenging the order Annexure P/14 dated 11.12.2003 passed by the Director General of Police rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner and the order dated 7.6.2003 Annexure P/12 passed by the Inspector General of Police, imposing penalty of compulsory retirement, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. At the relevant time when the impugned action was taken, petitioner was posted as Sub Inspector in Police Station, Kindrai, District Seoni. A complaint was received in the office of Superintendent of Police to the effect from one Swarooplal that his father has died in the village about six months back and for forwarding his claim for grant of pension under a particular scheme, the petitioner has demanded a sum of Rs.1000/-. 3. Record indicates that a show cause notice Annexure P/1 was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner's reply to the same Annexure P/2 being found to be not satisfactory, a preliminary enquiry was ordered which was conducted by the S.D.O.P. Police, Seoni...

Suresh Prasad Vs. Urmila Devi and Others

Court: Madhya Pradesh

1. The applicant has preferred an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C challenging the order dated 1.12.2010 passed by learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in Criminal Revision No.296/2009 by which the order dated 14.7.2009 passed by JMFC Rewa (Shri G. C. Mishra) in MJC No.189/2006 was confirmed. Applicant has also challenged the order dated 14.7.2009 passed by JMFC Rewa. 2. Facts of the case are that the respondent no.1 has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C that she was the wedded wife of the applicant. In 1986, after 8 years of her marriage Gauna took place and thereafter, she was residing with the applicant. She got six children from the applicant, out of them one had already expired. Applicant was in habit to assault the respondent no.1 and ultimately, she was thrown out from the house because the applicant kept one Geeta, daughter of Kolai @ Jamuna Saket in his house. Respondent no.1 and her children did not have any means for their maintenance and therefo...

Ramniwas and Others Vs. Game Range Chambal Sanctuary Bhind Headquarter ...

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Reported in: 2012CrLJ1747

1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these similar matters, with the consent of parties the matters were analogously heard and decided by this common judgment. 2. The facts are taken from Misc.Cri.Case No.213/2012. “On 14.3.2011 a tractor trolley of the petitioner was seized by forest officials under the provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the '1927 Act'). As per the story of prosecution, the forest officials were petrolling in the Chambal Sanctuary to check illegal mining of surface soil, sand. During the said petrolling, petitioner's tractor trolley was found laden with sand, surface soil, a forest produce in the prohibited area. Accordingly, the vehicle was seized and a forest criminal case was registered against the petitioner under 1927 Act. The 'forest produce' is defined in Section 4 of the 1927 Act. It is not in dispute between the parties that forest officials sent an intimation of aforesaid seizure to the Magistrate as...

Shankarlal Vs. Savitribai and Another

Court: Madhya Pradesh

1. The applicant-husband has preferred this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 9.3.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kotma District Anuppur (Shri B.S.Dixit) in Criminal Revision No.1/2010 by which the revision application was dismissed and the order dated 4.11.2009 passed in M.Cr.C. No.9/2009 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kotma District Anuppur (Shri SPS Bundela) was confirmed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein had moved an application before the trial Court under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. that the marriage of the respondent No.1 Savitribai took place with the applicant in the year 1999 which was followed by her Gona. Thereafter she resided with the applicant M.Cr.C. No.4338 of 2010 and respondent No.2 was born on 21.5.2005. During the pregnancy of respondent No.2, applicant ousted respondent No.1, and therefore she had lodged an FIR at Police Station Jaithari District Anuppur. The respondent No.1 was not wor...

Smt. Sheela Bhagel Vs. State of M.P. and Others

Court: Madhya Pradesh

1. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under:- 2. By invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20/12/2011 passed by the Court below. The petitioner has preferred an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to include certain other persons as accused. 3. Shri Rishishwar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner lodged FIR and mentioned the names of various persons including Majboot Singh, Ramsahai, Laxman, Ramratan, Horilal, Abhilakh, Pappu and Dev Singh. In her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also she made allegations and took the names of the aforesaid persons. However, while preparing report and framing charge, the police only framed charge against Majboot Singh and Ramsahai and did not proceed against the said persons. Learned counsel submits that in view of the specific allegations against the left-out persons stat...