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.
SachIn Ojha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
1 M. Cr.C.NO.1737/12.28.2.2013. Shri R.K.Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri P.K.Chourasiya, learned PL for the respondent/ State. Shri N.P.Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No.2. This case is listed today for final hearing at motion stage. The petition is heard finally. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the report registered as Crime No.618/11 at P.S.Adhartal, Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Section of Dowry Prohibition Act and the proceeding of Criminal Case No.14687/11 pending in the Court of JMFC Jabalpur. Petitioner No.2 has filed this petition on the ground that she is living at Bihar and suffering from several ailment and she has been falsely implicated being mother of petitioner No.1 and mother in law of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Hon'ble the Apex Court has held in the matter of B.S.Joshii versus State Haryana passed in Criminal Appeal No.3...
Kapil Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1700/2013 28.2.2013 Shri Manish Datt, senior counsel with Shri Nishant Datt, counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, PL for the State. Heard. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.The applicant is in custody since 16.10.2012 in connection with Crime No.510/2012 registered at Police Station Kolar Road District Bhopal for offence punishable under Sections 376, 308, 327, 342, 315, 313, 506, 324, 326 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. As per prosecution itself, the applicant and prosecutrix Usha Parmar had illicit relations since 2006, thereafter prosecutrix living separately. It is a case of belated F.I.R.The incident took place on 17.9.2012 and F.I.R.was lodged on 13.10.2012. Applicant is in jail and trial would take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, prays for grant of bail to applicant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer. On due consideration of the con...
Manoj Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
M.Cr.C.No.14109/2012 28.2.2013 Ms.Shobhna Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been released on ad-interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 29.11.2012 and the applicant did not misuse the liberty granted to him. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application. Since applicant has already been released on ad-interim anticipatory bail by this Court and there is no report that he misused the liberty granted to him, the order dated 29.11.2012 is hereby made absolute for a period of 60 days only. In the meanwhile, if the applicant so desires, may apply for regular bail before the competent Court, which shall be considered by that Court, in accordance with law. Certified copy as per rules. (G.S.Solanki) Judge PB...
Smt. Nirmalal Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
28.2.2013 Shri Ramesh Tamrakar, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been released on ad-interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 6.12.2012 and the applicant did not misuse the liberty granted to her. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application. Since applicant has already been released on ad-interim anticipatory bail by this Court and there is no report that she misused the liberty granted to her, the order dated 6.12.2012 is hereby made absolute for a period of 60 days only. In the meanwhile, if the applicant so desires, may apply for regular bail before the competent Court, which shall be considered by that Court, in accordance with law. Certified copy as per rules. (G.S.Solanki) Judge PB...
Prabhat Pathak Vs. Life Insurance Corporation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
W.P.No.2845/2012 28.2.2013 Shri Manot Chadurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Mukhtar Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondents. Though a reply has been filed by the respondents, but it is contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there should be detailed para wise reply of the petition as the petitioner is not satisfied by the order passed by the respondents granting the family pension to the son of petitioner only. Shri Mukhtar Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondents prays for time to file the detailed return of the petition. List immediately after filing of the detailed return in the week commencing 1.4.2013. (K.K.Trivedi) JUDGE P/...
M.T.Shinde Vs. M.P.State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.2804/2003 M.T.Shinde. Vs M.P.State Electricity Board and otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri Shailesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anoop Nair and Shri S.K.Nagpal, learned counsel for respondents. ORDER (28.2.2013) The only controveRs.involved in the present petition is whether the voluntary retirement of the petitioner could be termed to be after coming into force of the Notification dated 26.12.2000 and according to that Notification, the petitioner would be entitled to grant of benefit of commutation of pension in terms of the policy made pursuance to the aforesaid Notification or his claim would be considered for grant of commutation of pension in terms of the policy which was in vogue prior to coming into force of the Notification dated 26.12.2000. Since the controveRs.has been put at rest by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.857/2001 (N.L.Mandhan and others v...
Prahlad Singh Gond Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
Criminal Revision No.1013/2008 28.02.2013 Shri S.K.Tiwari, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The applicant has challenged the order dated 18.3.2008 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Umariya in S.T.No.262/07, whereby the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.filed by the prosecution was accepted and it was directed that the applicant may be made an accused in the case. The facts of the case, in short are that, the prosecutrix had lodged an FIR of rape committed by the accused Ramakant and after due investigation, a charge sheet was filed in which the applicant was shown as witness. Thereafter, when the prosecutrix was examined before the trial Court, she turned hostile and she alleged against the present applicant that he was the person, who committed rape with her. Thereafter, the trial Court added the applicant as an accused by accepting the application under Sec...
The State of M.P. Vs. Vijay and Onr
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
CRR No.599/2002 Criminal Revision No.599/2002 28.2.2013 Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/applicant. None for the respondents. Heard the learned counsel Panel Lawyer for the State. The State has preferred the present revision against the order dated 28.2.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni in Criminal revision No.147/2001, whereby the order dated 9.11.2001 passed by the learned JMFC, Waraseoni (Shri T.R.Stanley) in criminal case No.295/2000 was set aside, by which the charges of offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and section section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against the respondents. The facts of the case, relating to the present revision, in short, are that, the complainant Jyoti had lodged an FIR at Police station Lalbarra for the harassment done with her in the house of the respondents. The entire harassment was done according to the complainant at village Chandameta, District Chhindwara. The trial Court framed the ch...
Gopal Prasad Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
1 W.P.No.3953/2012 28.02.2013 Shri Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms.Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Ms.Vandana Shroti, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 4. This Court has specifically ordered the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat concerned to file an affidavit indicating that the payment of leave encashment amount is made to the petitioner in terms of order dated 5.8.2011 passed by the Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat by 27.2.2013. It was specifically directed that the case be listed today for the said purposes. It is informed by Ms.Vandana Shroti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 and 4 that an information was given to the concerned Chief Executive Officer, but nobody has contacted her and, therefore, affidavit could not be filed. This amount to contempt of this Court as specific order passed by this Court has not been complied with by the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat conce...
Chhotu Vs. Shri K.K. Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
Chhatu versus Shri K.K.Singh & Others Conc. No.1225 28. 2.2013: Shri Rajendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents. On 27.2.2012, W.P.No.3031/2012 (s) was disposed of by this Court without notice to the respondents and without hearing them and the only direction issued was that claim of petitioner for regularization be considered in accordance to the circular that was filed in the original writ petition and decision taken. Respondents have filed the return and it is brought to the notice of this Court in the return that no such rule as claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition is available, no such provision has been incorporated by the department and on examination as it was found that no such statutory rule is available. However, by filing rejoinder petitioner has brought on record orders passed on 29.6.1998 and 5.12.2001 Annexure C-4 and C-5 and contend that on the basis of M.P.Gangman Service Rule, 1996 already 25 per...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »