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.
Jafar @ Heeru Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
6.8.2012 Shri K.S.Rajput, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Akhilendra Singh, GA 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 19.5.2012 in connection with Crime No.165/2012 registered at P.S.Panchana Chowki Borgaon, District Khandwa for the offence punishable under sections 4,6,9 of the M.P.Govansh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004/ Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. They have no criminal past. 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 contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties and gravity of the offence, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicants on bail, therefore, without ...
Hanumat Gond Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
M.Cr.C.No.6350/2012 6/08/2012 Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri A.K.Chourasiya, 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 10/02/2012 in connection with Crime No.35/12 registered at P.S.Suatala, District Narsinghpur for the offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 294, 324, 326 and 341 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. As per prosecution itself it is alleged against this applicant that he assaulted the complainant Parvati Bai by means of khanita. It is further submitted that Parvati received only simple injuries therefore, no case is made out u/s 307 of IPC against this applicant. 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...
Smt. Shanti Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.111864/2012 (Smt. Shanti Bai versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 06.08.2012 Heard Shri R.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 18.7.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaisinghnagar, District Shahdol under section 40 of the M.P.Panchayati Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. Admittedly and apparently, the impugned order is appealably under the provisions of the Appeal and Revision Rules and, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to assail the impugned order by filing an appeal before the competent authority, if so advised. It needs no emphasis to state that in case the petitioner does file an appeal before the appellate authority within fifteen days alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the W.P.No.111864/2012 (Smt. Shanti Bai versus State of M.P.& Ors.) said authorit...
Smt. Girja Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
1 Criminal Revision No.1153/12 06.08.2012. Shri Ajay Mishra, Advocate for petitioneRs.State by Shri Sameer Chile, GA. Heard finally at motion stage with the consent of counsel for parties. This petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.has been filed to quash the charges framed under Sections 498-A and 306/34 IPC against petitioner no.1 Smt. Girja Bai , and under Section 306/34 IPC against petitioner no.2 Komal Kori. Learned counsel for petitioneRs.at the outset, wants to withdraw the petition relating to petitioner no.1 Smt. Girja Bai with the liberty to raise the points before the trial Court at an appropriate stage. So, the petition with respect to petitioner no.1 Girja Bai is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty prayed for. Charges against petitioner no.2 Komal Kori have been framed for alleged offence punishable under Section 306/34 IPC on the ground that on 12.3.12 he came at the house of deceased and for his welcome Girja Bai (petitioner no.1) asked the deceased to prepare tea...
Janatantra Sahkari Griha Nirman Samiti Maryadit Vs. Haricharan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
CIVIL REVISION No.210/2012 06.08.2012 Shri M.P. Acharya, Advocate for the applicant. Heard. The plaintiff-applicant has filed this revision against the order dated 18.5.2012 passed by the 9th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in RCS Case No.461-A/2008 rejecting the application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff and non- applicant No.1.2. The facts in brief are that plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of the agreements dated 1.5.1984 and 31.5.1984. It is said that on filing a suit bearing number 116-A/85 in the Court of 4th Civil Judge, Class-I, Bhopal fresh agreements were entered into. In furtherance to those agreements not parties have settled the dispute and on such settlement Rs.1,10,000/- be paid by the plaintiff to defendant No.1 and no other dispute has remained. Accordingly, prayer is made to settle the dispute. Objections have been filed by defendants No.7 to 13 and defendant No.4 separately and it was urged that during ...
Narayan Prasad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
M.Cr.C. No. 6376/2012 6.8.2012 Shri Praveen Pandey, counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, G.A. 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.146/2011 registered at Police Station Tikariya, Mandla for offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal past. It is alleged against this applicant that he caught hold the deceased Ajay Jharia and other coaccused assaulted him by kicks and fists and also by a stick. In the postmortem report, no vital organ of the deceased was found ruptured. No external injury was found in the postmortem report. Similarly placed coaccused Parsuram has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 28.3.2012 passed in M.Cr.C. ...
Virendra Kumar Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
M.Cr.C.No.4469/2012 6/08/2012 Shri Manish Datt with Shri Alok Vagrecha, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel for the Objector. Shri C.K.Mishra, 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 10/07/2011 in connection with Crime No.431/11 registered at P.S.Habibganj, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that as per prosecution it is alleged against this applicant that he deceived the complainant and taken more than Rs.15 lacs for admission of students. It is submitted that none of the students have lodged any report against the applicant. It is submitted that complainant was also involved in the same act and taken the money from concerning students therefore, the stu...
Mutawalli Committee DakkhIn Muslim Musafir Khana Vs. Madhya Pradesh Wa ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.19359/2011 (Mutawalli Committee Dakkhin Muslim Musafir Khana Ghantaghar versus M.P.Wakf Board and another) 06.08.2012 Shri S.A.Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Naman Nagrath learned Sr.counsel with Shri H.Mishra, for the petitioner. Shri Jafar Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of this petition the term of the impugned Committee has expired on 03.05.2012 and in such circumstances, the petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent/Board to undertake the proceedings for appointing fresh committee after duly considering the representation filed by the petitioner under section 32 of the Waqf Act, 1995. The learned Senior counsel for the respondent/Board submits that they would have taken steps for constituting a new committee but in view of the interim order passed by this court o01. 2012, no such steps have been taken. He further states that in case they are permitt...
Dinesh Kumar Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.10765/2012 06.08.2012 Shri Pranay Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate for the respondents/State. They are heard. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is seeking following reliefs: I. to call for the record of proceedings as pertaining to the impugned Order No.4969/RC/2012-13 dated 23.6.2012 passed by the respondent no.2 for perusal. II. Quash the impugned order No.4969/RC/2012-13 dated 23.6.2012 passed by the respondent no.2. III. Costs of petition be awarded and any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be also granted. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that vide order dated 23.6.2012 (Annexure P-2) issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Chhindwara (respondent No.2) the land upon which the shop of the petitioner is in existence is required for the District Court and therefore, the petitioner has b...
Smt. Shradha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.12199/2012 (Smt. Shradha & Anot versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 06.08.2012 Heard Shri Ahadulla Usmani, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition alleging that the respondent no.6 and other relatives of the petitioner no.1 are extending threat of life and limb to the petitioners on account of the fact that they have entered into an inter-caste marriage. It is further submitted that as they have been threatened, they are seeking a direction from this Court to the effect that they be granted police protection. From a perusal of the petition and the documents filed by the petitioners alongwith the petition, it is apparent that the petitioners have not made any such complaint before any authority not have they filed any fiRs.information report before the police against any person giving any specific incident of extending threat by any particular person on a particular date by a particular means. In the ci...
- ‹ Prev
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 135
- 136
- 137
- 138
- 139
- Next ›
- Last »