Madhya Pradesh Court February 2013 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.
Badri Rai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2413/2013 28.2.2013 Shri Ashish Kurmi, Advocate for the applicant. Shri G.S.Thakur, PL for the State. Admit. Call for the case diary. Heard on I.A.No.4469/2013, an application for grant of ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicant. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.42/2013 registered at P.S.Rahatgarh, District Sagar for the offence punishable under sections 353, 323, 189, 506(b).34 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. Except the offence under Section 353 of the IPC, remaining offences are bailable and triable by the Magistrate. Since the applicant made complaint against the complainant Secretary of Panchayat, therefore, he has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant has no criminal past. The applicant is ready to co-operate in the investigation. The applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, in the event of arrest his reputation will be tarnished, theref...
Jagdish Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
M.Cr.C.No.787/2013 28.2.2013 Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. Shri G.S.Thakur, PL for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. The applicant is in custody since 9.8.2012 in connection with Crime No.649/2012 registered at P.S.Motinagar, District Sagar for the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. His name does not find place in the FIR. As per prosecution itself, the applicant is not the main accused of the case. It is alleged that co-accused Badal assaulted deceased Gabbar by lathi on his head and ultimately Gabbar succumbed to the head injuries. The allegation against the applicant is that he assaulted other persons of complainant party. Thus, no case under Section 302 of the IPC is made out against the applicant. The applicant is in custody and trial would take considerable time t...
Vinod Prajapati Vs. Shri Gulshan Bamra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
Conc.P.No ::1311. / 2012 Vinot Prajapati versus Shri Gulshan BaMr.28.02.2013. Shri P. Chourasiya for the applicant. Shri Jaideep Singh, counsel for the non-applicant. Keeping in view the fact that order of mutation in the case of the applicant has already been passed by the non- applicant, as is evident from the reply filed by the non- applicant, no further action is required to be taken in the matter. In case, applicant feels that any illegal gratification was demanded from him for conducting the work by any Officer in exercise of his poweRs.then the applicant may make a complaint in the matter to Lok Ayukta or the competent authority, and it would be for these authorities to look into the matter. Accordingly, finding no further indulgence into the matter called for, the non-applicant is discharged from the proceedings and the application dismissed. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Hariom Gadri Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.240/1998 Hariom Gadri VERSUS The State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Jagtendra Prasad, counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 28th day of February, 2013) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 16 (1-A) (i) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter it will be referred to as the 'PF Act') vide judgment dated 14.2.1997 passed by the JMFC, Seoni Malwa, District Hoshangabad in criminal case No.455/1990 and sentenced for 6 months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-. In criminal appeal No.17/1997, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad vide judgment dated 21.1.1998 dismissed the appeal filed by the applican...
Ku. Aparna Choubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
1 M. Cr.C.NO.11803/2010 28.2.2013. Shri Kapil Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri P.K.Chourasiya, learned PL for the respondent/ State. Shri Nilesh Kotecha, learned counsel for respondent No.3. The petition is heard finally. During the couRs.of the argument it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Generator used by the petitioners company as alleged to have created nuisance has been replaced by the inverter, therefore there is no noise, pollution. This fact can be verified only producing the evidence or spot inspection which could be done by the learned trial Court i.e.the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Damoh in Criminal Case No.360/09. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the trial Court with a direction to verify the fact that whether nuisance as alleged by the petitioners is still continued or not and pass fresh order after recording the evidence or spot inspection as deemed necessary by the trial Court. The petition is di...
Jagieevanlal Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
W.P.No.2993/2013 (s) 28.02.2013 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri R.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents on payment of P.F.within 7 days by registered A.D.Notices be made returnable in six weeks. It is contended by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as Park- Kuli from which post his appointment was converted on the post of Peon and in terms of the provisions made under the relevant scheme, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Librarian, which was a Class-III post. Since after his promotion on the said post he was again considered and promoted on the post of Assistant Public Relation Officer on which post he is still working, therefore he could not be reverted in the manner as dictated by the State Government. This being so, it is contended that the order impugned is bad in law. Considering the aforesaid...
Smt.Pushpa Rathore Vs. Shri Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
Conc.P.No ::1570. / 2012 Smt. Pushpa Rathore versus Shri Sanjay Singh and others 28.02.2013. Shri Narendra Sharma for the applicant. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate, for the non-applicants. Considering the fact that the claim of the applicant has been rejected, as is evident from Annexure R/1, no further indulgence into the matter is called for. In case applicant has any grievance with regard to the manner in which his claim is considered, he may challenge the subsequent order afresh in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty to the applicant, the non- applicants are discharged from the proceedings and the application dismissed. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
The State of M.P. Vs. Ramadhar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
CRR No.531/2002 Criminal Revision No.531/2002 28.2.2013 Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/applicant. None for the respondent. Heard the learned counsel Panel Lawyer for the State. The State has challenged the order dated 30.1.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Hoshangabad in special case No.373/2001, whereby the case was sent under section 228 of the Cr.P.C.to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial because no charge of offence punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was made out. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 5.8.2001, the complainant Mahesh Basore and his companions went with a band to the village Kodarwara within the jurisdiction of District Hoshangabad. They were making their performance at that time but, at about 6 p.m.in the evening, a quarrel took place between two parties and therefore, the complainant stopped their performance. Therefore, the accused persons direct...
Anil Kumar Jagawani Vs. Divisional Deputy Comm. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
W.P.No.965/2004 Anil Kumar Jagwani Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Jabalpur & anothe28. 2.2013 Shri Sandesh Jain, counsel for petitioner. Shri Vivek Agarwal, G.A., for respondents. This petition is directed against an order Annexure P-7 dated 8.11.2002, by which a penalty under section 69(2) of the Commercial Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) was imposed on the petitioner and order Annexure P-12 dated 18.3.2003, by which a revision filed against the order Annexure P-7 was dismissed. The contentions of the petitioner are as under :- (1) That the petitioner was not liable for the penalty as the petitioner had already paid more than 80% tax assessed vide Annexure P-4. (2) That the assessment order Annexure P-4 dated 27.3.2002, by which the petitioner's sale was enhanced to Rs.8,28,873/- was modified in appeal, vide order Annexure P-14 dated 2.12.2005 and enhancement of aforesaid sale was reduced to the extent of Rs.2,72,500/- and similarly liabilit...
Parwati Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
M.Cr.C.No.14664/2012 28.2.2013 Shri G.P.Patel, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Punit Shroti, PL for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant apprehends her arrest in connection with Crime No.213/2012 registered at P.S.Chichli, District Narsinghpur for the offence punishable under sections 341, 294, 307,190,506-B/34 of the IPC and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. As per prosecution, it is alleged against the applicant that when co-accused Chandrakant and Mohan assaulted complainant Laxman Mehra, the applicant also assaulted him by foot and fists. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a lady, she has been falsely implicated in the case. No case under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the applicant because the reason of quarrel was not that the complainant was the member of scheduled caste or sched...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »