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.
Balvant Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
1 M.Cr.C No.1929/2006 26/2/2013 None for the petitioner. None for respondent No.1. Smt. Pratibha Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State. On earlier dates that is on 18.1.2011 and 24.2.2011 none appeared on behalf of the parties and stayed was vacated. In view of the aforesaid, it appears that both the parties have lost their interest to prosecute the case. The present petition has been preferred for quashment of criminal proceedings pending before the JMFC, Jabalpur in Criminal Complaint case No.687/05 under Sections 341, 294 and 506 of IPC and under Section 3-5 of Explosive Substance Act 1908. Quashment of proceeding has been sought mainly on the ground that the case of Explosive Substance is initiated only after obtaining due sanction required under Section 7 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908. For want of aforesaid sanction, prosecution has been vitiated and deserves to be quashed. In view of the aforesaid, petition is dismissed 2 M.Cr.C No.1929/2006 for want of prosecution, ...
Rajesh Katare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.1202/2006 Rajesh Katare and another VERSUS The State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Nitin Jain, counsel for the applicants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 26th day of February, 2013) The applicants were convicted for the offence punishable under section 456 of IPC vide judgment dated 13.4.2006 passed by the learned JMFC, Mandla (Shri Mukesh Arya) in criminal case No.610/2002 and each sentenced for 6 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-. In criminal appeal No.71/2006, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla vide judgment dated 17.7.2006 dismissed the appeal filed by the applicants in toto. Being aggrieved with the judgments passed by both the Courts below, the appli...
Ashok Kumar Namdeo Vs. Shri S.N. Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
Con.C.No.1737/11 26/02/13 Shri Sanjay Kumar Choubey, learned counsel for the applicant. Claiming payment of salary on the post of 'Guruji' for the period from March, 2000 to November, 2000 and, thereafter, from January, 2003 to 24.04.2008, W.P.No.4239/03 (s) was filed by the petitioner on 11/02/11. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Collector to consider the request of the petitioner, conduct an enquiry and pass a detailed order. Now, from the return filed by the respondents, it is seen that the Collector has taken note of the grievance of the petitioner and after enquiry has passed a detailed order Annexure R-1 dated 18/10/11. It is seen that petitioner is entitled to salary as is indicated in the order for the period in question. For the remaining period, the centre itself is closed and, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for salary. After evaluating the claim, a sum of Rs.9,000/- is paid to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, not no case is made out f...
Shraddha JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
Writ Petition No ::5899. / 2012 Shraddha Jain versus State of MP and others 26.02.2013. Shri N.K.Jain for the petitioner. Shri V.P.Tiwari, Panel Lawyer, for respondents 1 and 2. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Additional Advocate General for respondent No.3, Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal. Petitioner was a candidate who had appeared in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination 2011. She was a student of Commerce and in the subject of Book Keeping and Accountancy, she received only 72 marks. After evaluating her answers with reference to the modal answers circulated by the respondents, when the petitioner found that she should receive atleast more than 90% marks, she represented and when nothing was done, this writ petition was filed. On notice being issued, respondents have appeared and filed reply. Even though respondents have tried to justify their action, but from the records it is seen that immediately on receipt of notice, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respond...
Vijay Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
M.Cr.C. No.1070/2013 26.2.2013 Shri Purshottam Soni, counsel for the applicant. Shri Gitesh Singh Thakur, G.A.for the respondent/State. Heard. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.160/2010 registered at Police Station Digoda District Tikamgarh for offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He has no criminal past. He is in jail since 21.2.2011. During trial witnesses have been turned hostile. Trial would considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. Learned Government Advocate has objected the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that deceased Sushila herself stated before the Police that the present applicant has poured kerosene on her and then set to ablaze her, therefore prays for dismissal of the application. I have perused the case ...
SirajuddIn Khan Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
Con.C.No.1843/11 26/02/13 Shri Parag S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Keeping in view the nature of order passed by this Court which reads as under :- In view whereof since petitioner is not the holder, no direction at his instance can be given to respondent No.3. Regarding non-action on the complaints to police authorities the petitioner has a remedy either under sub- section (3) of Section 154 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 or under Sections 190, 200 of the Code, 1973. Since no relief can be granted to the petitioner, the petition is dismissed. I am not inclined to initiate any action for contempt. On the contrary, on advance notice, respondents have filed a report Annexure R-1 indicating that no offence is made out and, therefore, they have closed the case. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the application is therefore dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Nanhi Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1097/2013 26/02/2013 Shri Shailendra Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Puneet Shroti, PL for the respondent/State. Heard finally. The applicant is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.309/12 registered at police station Bhalumadha, District Anuppur for the offence punishable under sections 294, 323, 506-B, 307/34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is falsely implicated in the case. As per prosecution itself the main accused was her son Ateek who assaulted the complainant Mohd. Shahzad by danda (a wooden stick).It is alleged against this applicant that she caught hold the complainant at the time of incident. Nothing is required to be seized from her possession. She is a lady and reputed person of the society and in the event of arrest her reputation will be tarnished therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. Considering the overall facts and circ...
Baby Kachhi Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
Criminal Revision No.875/1999 26.02.2013 None for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State. None for the respondent No.2. No one is appearing on behalf of the applicant to argue the matter since long and therefore, it would be proper that matter may be considered itself. The applicant has challenged the judgment dated 25.2.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Court, Panna in S.T.No.97/98, whereby the respondent No.2 was acquitted from the charge of the offences punishable under Sections 376(1) & 450 of IPC. The prosecution's case in short is that, on 20.9.1998 at about 1:00 p.m.in the noon, the respondent No.2 entered into the house of the prosecutrix and asked for her elder brother-in-law Indrakosh (PW-7) thereafter, he demanded for some water. When, she brought a glass of water for the respondent No.3, he held the prosecutrix and committed rape upon her and thereafter, he ran away. After sometime, when Indrakosh (PW-7) came to the house, he asked a...
Suraj Chandrawanshi and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE VIMLA JAIN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1647/2004 1.Suraj Chandrawanshi Aged 26 years S/o Kedarnath 2.Kedarnath Aged 52 years S/o Kushalram Both residents of Karondi Police Station Rajendragram District Anuppur (MP) Appellants Versus State of Madhya Pradesh Through Police Station Amarkantak District Anuppur (MP) Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Madan Singh,Advocate for the appellants. Shri Umesh Pandey, Government Advocate for the State. Date of hearing :12. 2.2013 Date of judgment:26. 2.2013 (JUDGMENT ) Per: Vimla Jain, J Appellants preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by 2 the judgment dated 6.8.2004 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Sessions Trial No.43/2004, whereby each of the appellants has been convicted and sentenced as under:- ...
Santosh Kumar Sharma Vs. Vijay Singh Verma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
Con.C.No.1802/11 26/02/13 Shri Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. From the reply filed by the respondents, it is seen that for considering the claim of the petitioner for regularization, a scrutiny committee was constituted. The committee met on 4/05/11 and based on the report of the committee, the order Annexure R-2 has been passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner. In view of the above, not no further indulgence into the matter is called for in these proceedings for contempt, instead, if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the manner in which the scrutiny committee considered the claim, he shall be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. For the present, finding no case made out for proceeding further in the matter, respondents are discharged from the proceedings and the application is dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »