Madhya Pradesh Court August 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gendlal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.97/2012 Gendalal & Others VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri R.S.Patel, counsel for the appellants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 7th day of August, 2012) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 29.11.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in S.T.No.211/2010, whereby the appellants were convicted for offence punishable under section 307 or 307 read with section 34 of IPC and each sentenced for 7 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, each of them has to undergo for one year's additional rigorous imprisonment. The appellants are also convicted for offence punishable under section 45...
Babulal Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
WP No.7423/2012 07.08.2012 Shri Ravendra Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner/ plaintiff. Shri Rohini Prasad Tiwari, Government Advocate for the respondent No.1/State on advance copy. They are heard. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 26.4.2012 passed by learned Second Additional District Judge (FTC).Panna in Misc. Civil Appeal No.4/2012 whereby application for temporary injunction of the plaintiff has been rejected. On bare perusal of the averments made in the petition as well as the documents which are filed it is gathered that plaintiff/petitioner filed suit for declaration of the order dated 6.3.2012 passed by Municipality Amanganj to be null and void. During pendency of the suit an application for temporary injunction was filed which was rejected by Trial Court on 18.4.2012. An appeal was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner before the Appellate Court and during pendency of the appeal, ...
Smt. Shanti Sisodiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
W.P.No.12195.12 (Smt. Shanti Sisodiya versus State of M.P.& ors.) 07.08.2012 Shri A. Usmani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. In response to the petition filed by the petitioner wherein it had been alleged that Pankaj Sisodiya, Seema Sisodiya and Shakti Sisodiya have been illegally detained by the police, the respondents have filed a return and stated that Shakti Sisodiya is in custody pursuant to the offences under the Arms Act being registered against him and Seema Sisodiya alongwith Pankaj Sisodiya, the son of Seema Sisodiya, had been caught trying to attempt theft in an ATM and has thereafter been released on bond. As all the three have been dealt with in accordance with law and no illegal detention as alleged by the petitioner is found against the respondents, I find no reason to issue a writ or direction against the respondent authorities, which is, accordingly, dismissed. (R.S.Jha) Judge gn...
Smt. Roopbai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
7.8.2012 Shri G.S.Thakur, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Prakash Gupta, PL for the State. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicants under section 438 of Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.237/2012 registered at P.S.Hatta, District Damoh for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A of the IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. Applicant No.1 is mother-in-law and applicant No.2 is father-in-law of the complainant. The marriage of complainant was performed with Hari Singh 2 years before. The main allegation of demand of motorcycle is against co-accused Hari Singh. Counsel has further submitted that its a matrimonial matter, in the event of arrest of the applicants, the chances of compromise between the parties, if any, wil...
Santosh Raghuwanshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
1 W.A.No.882/2012 7.8.2012 Shri R.K.Tiwari, Counsel for appellant. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.GA for respondents. It is submitted by Shri Tiwari that he has received a communication in writing from the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Mandideep that the posts of two Revenue Sub-Inspectors at Municipal Council, Mandideep are not vacant as two Revenue Sub-Inspectors are already working against the sanctioned two posts of Revenue Sub-Inspector. He has handed over the copy of the letter to Shri Jaideep Singh who prays 2 days time to seek instruction in the matter. In view of aforesaid, we adjourn hearing of this appeal for 9.8.2012. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge C. Later on Shri R.K.Tiwari, Counsel for the appellant. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.GA for respondents. Shri Jaideep Singh, learned counsel for the State submitted that he has received instructions that in Mandideep Municipal Council, there are only two posts of Revenue Sub-Inspectors and both are filled with...
The State of M.P. Vs. Motilal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
1 Criminal Appeal No.1654/1997 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1654/1997 State of M.P. Vs. Motilal and another ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri G.S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State. Shri Siddharth Datt, counsel for the respondent No.2. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on 7th day of September, 2012) The appellant/State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 2nd February 1996 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No.316/89, whereby the respondents were acquitted from the charges of offences punishable under Sections 306/34 of IPC.2. The prosecutions case in short is that, on 30.6.1987 at about 6:00 p.m. in the eveni...
Kanhaiya Lal Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
W.P.No.7807/2012 07.08.2012 Shri Anil Lala, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rohini Prasad Tiwari, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. They are heard. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs:- (i) To issue suitable writ/directions for setting aside the impugned notice dated 16.4.2012 issued by the respondent no.2 in Kr./ 1183/G/12 Annexed as Annexure P-3. (ii) to issue suitable writ/directions for quashing the proceedings initiated for canceling the allotment of the house in question, allotted to the petitioner. (iii) To issue any other suitable writ/directions deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the petition. (iv) To award costs of the petition. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a Government accommodation House not G-99/61 situated at Tulsi Nagar, Bhopal has been allotted to the petitioner. However, since he has been transferred on 7.2.2011 (annexure P/1) to Morena...
Sheikh Rahim Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
W.P.No.17289/2007 (Sheikh Rahim and others versus State of MP and otheRs.07.08.2012 Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.S.Bisen, learned G.A.for the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to assail the impugned order dated 18.06.2007 passed by the Additional Collector by taking up proceedings before the Commissioner, Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur. It is observed that in case the petitioner does take up such proceedings before the concerned authority within 15 days of obtaining a copy of the order passed today, the authority concerned to consider and decide the same on merits and shall not dismiss it only on the ground of limitation. With the aforesaid liberty/observations, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of as withdrawn. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Manya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
7.8.2012 Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Prakash Gupta, PL for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. The applicants are in custody since 10.6.2012 in connection with Forest Crime No.4002/14 registered at P.S.Piplod District Khandwa for the offence punishable under sections 26(1-Chha) of Indian Forest Act and under section 9, 39 (a).50 (Ka)(kha).51(1).1A of the Wild Life Protection Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. They are agriculturists. Normally the wild animals (wild pig) enter into the fields of agriculturist, therefore, the agriculturists keep the dogs to attack them. The charge sheet has been filed. The applicants are in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, they be released on bail. Learned counsel for State has opposed the application. On due consideration of the conte...
Kuldeep Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
M.Cr.C.No.6658/2012 7.8.2012 Shri Manot Kumar Pandey, counsel for the applicant. Shri A.K.Singh, GA for the respondent/State. Heard. The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.67/2012 registered at P.S.Dharampur, Panna for the offence punishable under Sections 304/34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 16.4.2012. He has been falsely implicated in this case. As per prosecution, it is alleged against the applicant that he and deceased Mohd. Mustaq had gone to attend a marriage where their car was stopped. When the deceased pushed the car from the front side suddenly the car started and the deceased was fallen in a drain. Thereafter, the said vehicle was ran over the deceased due to which he died. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no intention to kill the deceased. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to conclude finally, therefore, he prays for grant ...
- ‹ Prev
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- Next ›
- Last »