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.
Smt.Rukmani Naag Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1 W.P.No.10539/2012 Smt. Rukmani Nag versus State of M.P.& ORS.01.08.2012 Shri Sunil Singh learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the High Powered Committee which is empowered to look into the authenticity of the caste certificates and complaints related thereto. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the aforesaid authority in accordance with law. It needs no emphasis to state that in case the petitioner approaches the concerned authority for mitigation of his grievance alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the said authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty and observation the petition, filed by the petitioner, stands disposed of. C.C as per rules. ( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE mct/-...
Banti Alias Ramraj Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
M.Cr.C.No.8664/2012 01/08/2012 Shri Mukesh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri C.K.Mishra, P.P.for the respondent/State. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is 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 5.05.12 in connection with Crime No.106/12 registered at P.S.Chand, District Chhindwara for the offence punishable under section 34 (2) of the M.P.Excise Act. As per prosecution 55 liters of country made liquor has been seized from the possession of this applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. 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 consider...
Shriram Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1.8.2012 Shri B.J.Chourasia, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, 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 12.6.2012 in connection with Crime No.352/2012 registered at P.S.Khurai, District Sagar for the offence punishable under sections 304-B, 498-A/34 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. They have no criminal past. Applicant No.1 is father-in-law and applicant No.2 is mother-in-law of deceased Priyanka, who died unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage. There are omnibus allegations against the applicants in regard to demand of dowry. 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. Considering the overall fa...
Smt.Sushma Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
W.P.No.11650 / 2012 (Smt. Sushma Patel ...Vs...State of M.P.& ors.) 01-08-2012 Heard Shri Sushil Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the Collector and the S.D.O., Jabalpur are not looking into the complaint, dated 18-5-2012 (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner regarding fraudulent affixation of her signatures by the private authority. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents submits that the aforesaid complaint filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided by the concerned authority expeditiously in accordance with law. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner furnishes a copy of the order passed today along with a copy of the petition within 15 days of obtaining the same to the respondent/authorities, the concerned authority shall consider and decid...
Devidayal Balmik Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
W.P. No. 11847/2012 1.8.2012 Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Order dated 13.7.2012 is being assailed vide this petition; whereby petitioner, Patwari, has been transferred from Tikamgarh to Lidhora, district Tikamgarh. Challenge is on the ground that petitioner since is suffering from Cancer his transfer ought to have been stayed. True it is the document filed by the petitioner does reveal that the petitioner is suffering from the ailment but the same very document reveals that the treatment for said ailment is taken by the petitioner either at Bombay or Gwalior. It being not the case of the petitioner that treatment being available at Baldeogarh, on his transfer he will be deprived of the same. The transfer, as apparent from order dated 13.7.2012 is in administrative exigency and is within district. The petitioner since is ...
Smt. Janki Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
M.Cr.C.No.3267/2012 01/08/2012 Shri R.S.Patel, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri C.K.Mishra, P.P.for the respondent/State. With the consent of learned counsel for the both the parties, the matter is heard finally. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.479/2011, registered at police station Kareli, District Narsinghpur for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A/34 of IPC and section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is mother-in-law of deceased Radha Bai. It is further submitted that during treatment of Radha Bai her dying declaration was recorded by Executive Magistrate wherein nothing has been stated against this applicant in regard to committing cruelty for demand of dowry thereafter, the exaggerated and omnibus ...
Hansraj Pareta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
W.A.No.1322/2011 1.8.2012 Shri Arvind Chouksey, counsel for appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.A.G., for respondent no.1 on advance notice. I.A.No.3007/2012 for amendment in the cause title. Learned counsel for appellant submits that today itself he is filing an affidavit in support of I.A.No.3007/2012 and is also moving an application seeking condonation of delay in impleading Medical Council of India as respondent no.8. Prayer is allowed. I.A.No.2839/2012 seeking condonation of delay in filing this appeal. Issue notice of this application to the other side, to show cause why this application be not allowed and delay in filing this appeal be not condoned. Steps within a period of one week by Regd. A/D mode. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge M....
Sunil Burman Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
M.Cr.C.No.4769/2012 01/08/2012 Shri Ramkirpal Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant. 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 22/02/12 in connection with Crime No.48/12 registered at P.S.Umaria, District Umaria for the offence punishable under sections 364 (ka) of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to dispose of finally therefore, he prays for bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. On perusal of the case diary, it reveals that this applicant alongwith co-accused Raj Singh had kidnapped the minot child Anant Jharia for demand of ransom. In these circumstances, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. According...
Pavan @ Pankaj Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1 Criminal Appeal No.1264/2010 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1264/2010 Pavan @ Pankaj Gupta Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name of counsel for the parties: Shri R.K. Chaturvedi, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer the respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDGMENT (Passed on 1st day of August, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 17.6.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Nowgaon, District Chhatarpur in S.T. No.84/2009, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 336 of IPC and Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced for three months S.I. and one year...
Jahar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
Jahar Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. Writ Petition No.11959/ 2012 (s) 1.8.2012: Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State, on advance notice. Challenging the order dated 22.8.2009 passed by the Collector Chhatarpur terminating the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Secretary and the order dated 9.7.2012 passed by the Commissioner rejecting the appeal of the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed.2. Petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi and the powers of Panchayat Secretary was conferred upon him by the Collector. However, it was found that in the discharge of his duties and in the matter of executing certain work petitioner has committed defalcation of Rs.5,18,779/- and, therefore, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Reply to the show-cause notice found to be unsatisfactory, the service of petitioner was brought to an end. Challenge to this was made before the Comm...
- ‹ Prev
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 148
- 149
- 150
- Next ›
- Last »