Madhya Pradesh Court June 2012 Judgments
Smt. Kiran JaIn Vs. Anand Kumar Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADAHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR SB: Honble Mr.Justice M.A.Siddiqui M.Cr.C.No.6278/2005 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Anand Kumar Jain ____________________________________________ Shri A.K.Jain, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri S.K.Jain, learned counsel for respondent. ____________________________________________ ORDER RESERVED ON 27.06.12 ORDER PASSED ON 29.06.12 ORDER This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) has been filed in order to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court to register the criminal complaint which has been declined to be registered by trial Court as well as in revision by Sessions Court, Jabalpur.2. In nut shell, the facts of the case are that respondent entered into an agreement with the petitioner to sell his 1/3 rd joint share (undivided) of House No.551/1, New No.908, situated at Lordganj, Jabalpur on 26.12.04 for a consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.5,000/- were taken in advan...
Tag this Judgment!Ajam Khan Vs. Chairman
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
W.P.No.22063/2011 (Ajam Khan versus Chairman M.P.Wakf Board and otheRs.29.06.2012 Heard Shri Alok Baghrecha with Shri S.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Saleem Rehman, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2, and Shri Jafar Khan, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 to 13 on the question of admission and interim relief. The petition filed by the petitioner is opposed by the respondents on the ground of alternative remedy being available to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 83 of the M.P.Wakf Act 1995. The aforesaid statutory position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner who however, submits that the writ petition can be entertained by this court as there is violation of mandatory procedure prescribed by law. Be that as it may, as the fact as to whether statutory procedure prescribed by law has been followed or not, is a disputed question of fact, I do not deem it proper to entertain this petition, accordingly, the same is dis...
Tag this Judgment!Anurudh Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
(M.Cr.C.No.3213/2012) 29/6/12 Shri Surendra Singh, Senior Counsel with Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, Govt. Adv.for respondents-State. With consent, the matter is heard finally. This is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code).The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18/1/2012 passed by FiRs.ASJ.Chhatarpur in Cri. Revision No.193/2011, affirming the order passed on 25/7/11 by CJM, Chhatarpur in Cri. Case No.1758/11, whereby particulars of the offence, punishable under Section 4 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).were read over and explained to him and the co-accused for the purpose of recording their plea. Prosecution case, in short, may be stated as under: On 18/11/2011, at about 1.10 p.m., Shiv Mohan, posted as ASI at Kotwali Chhatarpur, received a credible information to the effect that gambling was going on in a shop, named as Recondo Photocopy and situated in fro...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanaram Joshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
W.P.No.17725/2007 29/06/2012 Shri Satyendra Jyotishi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.K.Pandey, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondents/State. Petitioner is an employee of the Janpad Panchayat constituted under the Panchayat Raj Awam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. Service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the M.P.Panchayat Services (Recruitment & General Conditions of Service) Rules 1999. Admittedly, the retirement age of the employee to whom the services are applicable is 60 yeaRs.It is the case of the petitioner that the circular is issued, by which the retirement of the employee working in an autonomous organizations is enhanced from 60 to 62 years as is evident from Annexure-P4 and, thereafter, vide notification Annexure-P5, age of retirement of a Government employee has also been increased. As the said benefit is not granted to the petitioner, he has filed this writ petition. Notices have been issued to the respondents and the respondents have filed th...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Musharraf Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1181/1996 Sheikh Musarraf Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ........................................................................................................... For the appellant : Shri Zarar Khan, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri G. S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer. ........................................................................................................... JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 29th day of June, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 2.7.1996, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in Special Case No.303/1996 whereby appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 452 of I.P.C and inflicted with the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.200/-; in default of payment of fine he was to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. The pros...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish @ Magna Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.2067/1997 Jagdish @ Magna VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri P.N.Das, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 29th day of June, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 26.9.1997 passed by Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T.No.286/1997, whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under sections 448 and 324 of IPC and sentenced for 6 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-. He was to undergo for additional period of one month and three months simple imprisonment respectively, in default of payment of fine.2. Prosecution's ...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Swa Sahayata Samuh Nanhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
W.P.No.9355/2012 (Subhash Swa Shayata Samuh Nanhi, Tehri versus State of MP and otheRs.29.06.2012 Heard Shri K.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned G.A.for the State on the question of admission interim relief. Though several issues have been raised by the petitioner in the petition, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the fact that the petitioneRs.lease for the Tank is going to expire on 30.06.2012, the respondents/authorities be directed to take action on the representation filed by the petitioners for re-allotment of the Tank at the earliest. Learned Government advocate appearing for the State submits that the representation of the petitioners shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid without entering into the merits of the case the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner furnishes a copy of ...
Tag this Judgment!Rinku Nouriya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
1 Cr.A. No.1050/2012 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1050/2012 Rinku Nouriya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -Name of counsel for the parties: Shri D.K. Soni, counsel for the appellant. Shri S.K. Kashyap, Public Prosecutor the respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Passed on 29th day of June, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 2.12.2011 in S.T. No.158/2011 passed by the Sessions Judge Narsinghpur, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC and sentenced for seven years R.I. with fine of `1,000/-. In addition, one year R.I. was awarded in defa...
Tag this Judgment!Asharam Meshram Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
W.P.No.7239/2011 29/06/2012 Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Raizada, learned counsel for Respondent No.6. Petitioner is working as an Additional Tehsildar and has filed this writ petition, challenging the initiation of departmental enquiry of the petitioner under Rule 14 of the M.P.Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1966 Annexure-P5 & P15 by the Commissioner/Respondent No.3. It is the case of the petitioner that Respondent No.3 the Commissioner Jabalpur Division is only authorized to initiate the departmental enquiry for minot punishment and for major punishment under Rule 14 of the Rules, the State Government is authorized to conduct the enquiry and, therefore, the punishment imposed and the initiation of charge-sheet is illegal. While issuing notice to the respondents, finding the contention of the petitioner to be prima-facie correct, further action in the initiation of charge-sheet was stayed. not more than one year has passed and t...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal and anr., Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
1 Criminal Appeal No.1908/1996 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1908/1996 Babulal and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri G.S. Thakur, Advocate from the panel of Legal Aid on behalf of the appellants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer the respondent/State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Passed on 29th day of June, 2012) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 8.10.1996 in S.T. No.184/2006 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Chhindwara, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced for one year R.I. w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »