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.
Jangliya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
1 Criminal Revision No.1312/12 06.08.2012. Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. Shri V.Lakhera, PL for State. Heard on the point of admission. Perused the records of Courts below. Revision seems to be arguable, hence admitted for final hearing. Also heard on IA 14690/12, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been convicted under Section 379 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I.for two years by CJM, Katni in Criminal Case No.3847/08. Against the aforesaid judgment, Criminal Appeal No.170/10 was preferred which stood dismissed on 24.12.11 by learned Sessions Judge, Katni and judgment delivered by CJM, Katni was maintained. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is in jail since 24.12.11 and if the jail sentence is not suspended the revision will become futile. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that jail sentence imposed o...
Gandhi @ Vijay Pal Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
M.Cr.C.No.6303/2012 06.08.2012 Shri Amit Upadhyay, counsel for the applicant. Shri Akhilendra Kumar Singh, GA for the respondent/State. Heard. The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.87/2012 registered at P.S.Sahpur, Dindori for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 511 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 15.4.2012. He has been falsely implicated in this case. As per MLC report no injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix. Charge has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to conclude finally, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to applicant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer. On due consideration of the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties along with facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. His application is allowed. It is di...
Narendra Kumar Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.12326 / 2012 (Narendra Kumar Pandey .versus State of M.P.& otheRs.06-08-2012 Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the petitioner, who is a police inspector and is incharge of P.S.Bamitha, District Chhatarpur, has been sent on training for a period of six months to Indore by the impugned order dated 4-6-2012, totally overlooking the circular of the respondents themselves dated 14-8-2007 as well as the fact that the petitioner has only a few years of service remaining and, therefore, the training sought to be given to him would go waste and would also result in wastage of public money. The petitioner submits that he is at present on medical leave on account of the fact that he is suffering from diabetes and hypertension and has, therefore, sought exemption from training on the above mentioned groun...
Noor Mohamad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
06.08.2012 Shri M. Yunus Khan, counsel for the applicant. Shri A.K. Singh, GA for the State. Heard. This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 9/2012 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Madan Mahal, Jabalpur for offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is a matrimonial case and in the event of arrest of applicant, the possibility of compromise between applicant and complainant would be diminished. Applicant has intended to make a compromise with complainant but she still is not agree. She left the house of her husband and is living with her parents. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality and in the event of a...
Praveen Prabhakar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
1 W.P. No. 15250/2011 6.8.2012 Shri Akash Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for respondent State. Shri K.K. Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2. Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 Shri Pushpendra Singh Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. Heard. The controveRs. raised vide this petition lies within narrow compass as to whether the Educational Institution, respondent No. 4, wherein the petitioners were admitted to prosecute B. Ed Course for the academic session 200708 could be denied the results of the examination which they appeared in, in spite of recognition of the said College having been extended till the academic year 200708. Petitioners were admitted to Sarawati Shiksha Mahavidyalaya in B. Ed (Science) Course for academic session 200708. The said institution was sub...
Kishan Lavisar Vs. Collector
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.11201/2012 06.08.2012 Shri Raghvendra Kumar, Advocate for petitioneRs.Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate for respondents on advance copy. They are heard. During the couRs.of arguments, it has been put- forth by learned counsel for petitioners that this petition be disposed of by giving a direction to the Collector Hoshangabad to decide the representation of the petitioners dated 12.01.2012 (Annexure-P/6) and to extend the benefit of Scheme for resettlement of inhabitants of village which are coming under the said Scheme. This contention is accepted and this petition is disposed of by giving a direction to the Collector Hoshangabad to consider the representation of the petitioner (Annexure-P/6) in terms of said Scheme and pass necessary order in accordance with law. Let this exercise be done within a period of two months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of. (A.K.Shrivastava) JUDGE. SS...
Neeraj Kukreja Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.6159/2012 & 6160/2012 (Sunil Kumar Shrivastava versus State of M.P.& Ors.) & Neeraj Kukreja & Ors versus State of M.P.& ORS.06.08.2012 Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sudesh Verma, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 3 & 5. Shri Atul Nema learned counsel for respondent no.8. Shri Atul Chaudhary learned counsel for respondent no.9. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Both the aforesaid petitions have been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the action taken by the railway police at Katni against the petitioneRs.As the issue involved is common and is the same, they are heard and decided concomitantly. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the Chief Vigilance Inspector/Vigilance Inspectors/Assistant Vigilance Officer of the Vigilance Branch of the West Central Railway, Jabalpur and while conducting inspection they also conducted inspection of respondent no.8. As the ...
Ramlal Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.4952/2012 (Ramlal Ahirwar versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 06.08.2012 Heard Shri V.P.Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the police authorities on the complaint filed by the petitioner. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Sakiri Vasu versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2008(2) SCC 409.and 2008(3) SCC 54.Divine Retreat Centre versus State of Kerala and otheRs.the petitioner is required to take up the appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Cr.P.C.in accordance with law instead of filing the present petition before this court. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take up appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for mitigation of his grievances, if so advised. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C.as per ...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Gaya Prasad Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
CR.R.No.757.11 06.08.2012 Shri Rahul Gupta , Advocate, for applicant. Shri Akshya Namdeo, PL. for respondent/State. Heard on I.A.No.25257/11 an application for permanent exemption of the applicant from personal appearance. Looking to the averments made in the application I.A.No.25257/11 is allowed. Applicant is exempted from appearance before the registry instead not he will appear before JMFC Sehore on 27.8.2012 and on such other dates as he be directed by that court . It is directed that certified copy of the order sheet of fiRs.appearance of applicant before the JMFC Sehore on 27.8.2012 be filed before this Court within a week of applicant's appearance. List for final hearing in due course. (M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE Ag/...
Mohammad SaifuddIn @ Babu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
M.Cr.C.No.6369/2012 6/08/2012 Shri N.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, P.P.for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 21/03/2012 in connection with Crime No.61/12 registered at P.S.Amiliya, District Sidhi for the offence punishable under sections 363 and 366 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that no allegation of rape has been made against this applicant. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to be disposed of finally therefore, he prays for bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case alongwith the gravity of offence, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bai...
- ‹ Prev
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- Next ›
- Last »