Madhya Pradesh Court March 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.
Vinod Rai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
M.Cr.C. No.2278/2013 25.3.2013 Shri Rahul Tripathi, counsel for the applicant. Shri C.K. Mishra, GA for the respondent/State. Heard. This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 55/2013 registered at Police Station Pipariya, District Hoshangabad for offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409/34 of IPC. As per prosecution, it is alleged against applicant that he and other coaccused persons have sanctioned the loan of the Society dishonestly and misappropriated the huge amount. therefore they committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 409 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He has no criminal past. Applicant was the Assistant Manager of Bharat Shakh Sahakari Sansthan Maryadit, Pipariya. No. the applic...
Smt. Rafat Habib Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
Smt. Rafat Habib versus State & ORS.W.P.No.3999/2013 25/03/2013 Shri Prashant Chourasia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner claims to be owner of certain property and it is stated that Respondent No.5 and petitioner have executed an agreement with regard to transfer and sale of the property and as Respondent No.5 is pressuring the petitioner to execute the agreement, therefore, this petition is filed seeking an action against the Respondent No.5. On going through the material available on record and on hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that the dispute is a civil dispute with regard to transfer of property between the petitioner and Respondent No.5 and it is not for a Writ Court to interfere into the dispute. If the petitioner has any grievance in the matter, she may file a suit for injunction or a private Criminal Complaint. Considering the nature of dispute involved in the matter, I see no reason to interfere into the matter. With the aforesaid, the ...
Sonu @ Vishal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3304/2013 25.3.2013 Shri Aseem Dixit, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Punit Shroti, 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 28.2.2013 in connection with Crime No.87/2013 registered at P.S.Rahli, District Sagar for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC. As per prosecution, it is alleged against the applicant that Co.accused Man Singh had taken loan from HDFC Bank, Branch Makronia, Sagar and at the time of disbursement of said loan, the applicant identified Man Singh, who is alleged to have impersonated himself as Pramod Singh. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Charge sheet has been filed. The applicant is in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he be released on bail. Learned counsel for State has opposed the application....
Smt. Shakila Bee Vs. Shri Ajhar Baig Mirja
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
Smt. Shakila Bee versus Ajhar Baig Mirja W.P.No.4568/2013 25/3/2013 Smt. Ritu Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging an order dated 28.1.2013 passed by the FiRs.Additional District Judge, Harda in G & W No.6/2012, this writ petition is filed. Petitioner is wife and respondent is the husband. It seems that proceedings are pending in the court below in the matter of custody of the child named Asher. The court below by the impugned order has allowed an application filed by the respondent and has granted him permission for meeting his son between 2 p.m.to 3 p.m.in the court premises, whenever the son is produced in the court. Inter-alia contending that when the son was produced on 1st of March, 2013, respondent took him from the court premises, as a result, the son fell sick, therefore, challenge is made to the order impugned and the aforesaid action of the respondent. As far as the impugned order is concerned, said order only permits the father to meet the son for one hou...
Edward Dlima Vs. Smt.LIn Dlima
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
Writ Petition No ::18269. / 2012 Edward DLima versus Smt. Lin DLima and another 25.03.2013. Shri Sidharth Gulatee for the petitioner. Shri Arvind Shrivastava for respondent No.1. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an interlocutory order dated 3.9.2012, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.343-A/2011, by which an application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for impleading respondent No.2 as a party to the proceedings has been rejected. Respondent No.1 wife has filed a suit for divorce under section 10 of The Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1869).on the ground of desertion and cruelty. Annexure P/1 is a copy of the plaint filed by her. In reply to the allegations made in the plaint, petitioner has filed a reply vide Annexure P/2 and in the said reply certain grounds of adultery are alleged against the respondent. On the ground that the a...
Nandlal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2353 o25. 03.13 Shri Mukesh Pandey, counsel for the applicants. Shri R.P.Tiwari, GA for the respondent No.1. Shri M.L.Patel, counsel for respondent No.2. This case is listed today in compliance of earlier direction for final hearing at motion stage. The same is taken-up for such hearing. In the couRs.of arguments on merits, on referring para-4 and para-11 of the impugned order of the revisional court by the applicants counsel, on asking him that such issue was considered by the trial court in which manner and has he filed the copy of the trial court's order in this petition, on which, he fairly submits that the copy of such order dated 19.5.2010 passed by JMFC has not been placed on the record and seek short adjournment to submit the same. Such copy of the order appears to be necessary for adjudication of this matter, hence the case is adjourned with a direction to place for further arguments in the week commencing 15.4.2013. Meanwhile, positively copy of such order be placed...
Rajesh Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
M.Cr.C. No.297/2013 25.3.2013 Shri Prakash Upadhyay, counsel for the applicant. Shri C.K.Mishra, GA, for the respondent/State. Heard. This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.179/12 registered at Police Station Tala, District Satna for offence punishable under Sections 395 and 412 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He has no criminal past. He further submits that name of this applicant did not find place in the fiRs.information report. Applicant is only implicated on the basis of memorandum of co-accused wherein he stated that some looted property has given to the present applicant. Co-accused happens to be the son of the present applicant. He is reputed person of the society and in the event of arrest, his reputation would be tarnished, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the...
Mukesh Namdeo Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2221/2013 25.3.2013 Shri Neeraj Ashar, 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 10.12.2012 in connection with Crime No.105/12 registered at Police Station Baroundha, District Satna for offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC and Section 11/13 of A.D.Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The offence levelled against the applicant is triable by Magistrate. Charge sheet has already been filed 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 contentions raised by the counsel for the parties along with facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the...
Shyam Kishor Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
1 MCC No.380/2013 25/3/2013: Shri M.P.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. This application has been filed for correction of an typing error that has crept into the order dated 20.2.2013 passed by this Court in W.P.No.21477/2012. In the order passed in the writ petition the amount being recovered from the petitioner is shown as Rs.52,441/- whereas, the correct amount is Rs.69,561/-. Seeking correction of the aforesaid, this application has been filed. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and a perusal of the record of the original writ petition and averments made therein including the prayer clause clearly goes to show that the amount said to be recovered was Rs.69,561/- and therefore, there is a typing error in indicating the exact amount. In view of the above, this application is allowed. Amount indicated in the order passed on 20.2.2013 in W.P.No.21477/2012 be read as Rs.69,561/- instead of Rs.52,441/-. With the aforesaid, this application for review stands allowed...
Kallu @ Rajesh Bhadoriya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
1 M.Cr. C No.3650/13 25.3.2013 Shri Ajit Kumar Rawat, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned P.L.for the State. Heard. The applicant/accused has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashment of the FiRs.Information Report dated 23.2.2011, registered as Crime No.66/11, against the applicant along with other Co.accused at Police Station Nowgaon District Chhatarpur, for the offence of Sections 34(2) and 36 of Excise Act. As alleged, such case was registered in connection of seizure of 28,080 liters liquor which was under transportation illegally at the instance of the applicant herein. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view his arguments, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on the record. As per FiRs.Information Report, the driver of the alleged truck was transporting the alleged liquor illegally at the instance of present applicant Kallu @ Rajesh Bhadoriya. The name of the applicant as culprit of the offence is mentioned in the FiR...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »