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.
Halke @ Bharatram Lodhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.325/2013 25.3.13 Shri R.S.Patel, counsel for the applicant(s).Shri C.K.Mishra, GA, for the respondent/State. Shri Ashish Tiwari, counsel for the objector. Heard. The applicants are in custody since June, 2012 in connection with Crime No.6/2012 registered at P.S.Simra, District Tikamgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. It is alleged against the applicants that they committed murder of Roop Singh. The sole case is rest on belated statement of witness Balchand S/o Bhagwandas. However, during trial Balchand has not supported the prosecution case. The other witnesses have not stated anything , except the fact that the applicant no.2 has illicit relations with applicant no.1. The applicants are in jail and trial would take considerable time to conclude finally, therefore, prays for grant of bail to applicants. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer. ...
Rajkumar Rajput Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1055/2013 25.3.2013 Shri Manish Datt, senior counsel with Shri Ajay Mishra, counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, PL, for the State. Heard. This is fifth application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.Earlier three applications (first, third and fourth) of the applicant were dismissed as withdrawn by this Court. The second application was allowed for a limited period by this Court. The applicant is in custody since 7.4.2011 in connection with Crime No.159/2011 registered at Police Station Kolar Road, District Bhopal for offence punishable under Sections 148, 307, 302/149 of IPC, Section 25/27 of Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that during trial as many as nine witnesses have been examined but none of them have supported the prosecution case. He also submits that witnesses Jafar Naqvi and Harshit Guru, as per prose...
Phaguram @ Phagan Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH Criminal Appeal No.241/2001 Phaguram @ Phagan, son of Devsingh Gond, aged 30 years, Agriculturist, r/o Magarwada, Police Station Motinala, District Mandla. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant: Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate. For the State: Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESENT: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE VIMLA JAIN ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing:19. 03/2013 Date of Judgment:25. 03/2013 JUDGMENT Per: Rakesh Saksena, J.Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 4th December, 2000, passed by Sessions Judge, Mandla i...
Dhananjay Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
1 W.P.No.4207/2013 25/3/2013: Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents State. Similar petitions have been disposed of vide order dated 14.8.2012 in W.P.No.2583/2012 in following terms :- "Shri A.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Govt. Adv.for the respondents State. They are heard finally. The order passed in this petition shall also govern the disposal of W.P.No.2585/2012 [Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi versus State of M.P.& Others].since the point involved in both the petition is common. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is seeking the relief that the objection in regard to inadequacy of the compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act") has been raised by the petitioner by filing an application under Section 18 of the said Act, however, the said application has been summarily dismissed holding that the...
Kalyan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1688/2013 25.3.2013 Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, 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 22.11.2012 in connection with Crime No.412/2012 registered at P.S.Jatara, District Tikamgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 394, 120-B of the IPC. 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. On due consideration of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties and overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail, therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of th...
Mohammad Haroon Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3399/2013 25.3.2013 Shri Imtiyaz Hussain, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Punit Shroti, PL for the State. Admit. Call for the case diary. Heard on I.A.No.6220/2013, an application for grant of ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicants. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.1/2013 registered at P.S.Mahila Thana, District Sagar for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 376, 511, 294/34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. Applicant No.1 is father-in-law, applicant No.2 is mother- in-law and applicant No.3 is sister-in-law (Nand) of complainant Dr. Shiny Anjum. The complainant lodged false report against applicants after 10 months of the divorce. Son of applicant Nos.1 and 2 Dr. Arif Qureshi is also living separately. He is posted in another place. It is a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife. The app...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Santosh Rajak
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
R.P.No.213/2013 25/3/2013: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for applicant- State. Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for respondent. This application has been filed for review/ recall of an order passed on 31.1.2012 in W.P.No.117/2012. The writ petition was decided on the same date when it was listed for admission without notice to the respondents. not from the averments made in the review application it is seen that the question of existence of relationship of employer and employee of the State Government is involved in the matter and therefore, it is a fit case where the order passed in the writ petition should be reviewed. In view of the above, this application is allowed as there is error apparent in the face of the record. Order passed on 31.1.2012 in W.P.No.117/2012 is recalled. Writ petition is restored to its original file. It be placed for orders before the appropriate Bench as per roster. This application stands allowed and disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge mrs.mishra...
Dilip Aarsiya Vs. Rajendra Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
Dilip & Ors versus Rajendra Kumar & Anr.W.P. No.4586/2013 25/3/2013 Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an interlocutory order dated 10.1.2013 passed by the 4th Civil Judge Class-II Chhindwara in Civil Suit No.29-A/2012, whereby Respondent/Defendant No.1 has been granted one more opportunity to produce his evidences after imposing a cost of `1,000/-. Petitioner is plaintiff and has filed the suit in question for declaration and injunction. In the said suit after the defendant committed default in producing witnesses on more than two occasions, his right to give evidence was closed but, thereafter, in an application filed under Section 151 of the C.P.C, a last opportunity is granted to the defendant to lead evidence and a cost of ` 1,000/- has been imposed. The discretion exercised by the court below for permission to lead evidence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, does not ca...
Kanhaiya Mihani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
Mcr.C.No.1817 o22. 03.13 None for the applicant. Shri R.P.Tiwari, GA for the respondent/state. Having perused the petition, I have found that the same has been filed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C for modification of the order dated 5.1.11 passed in M.Cr.C.No.5052/10 by the co-ordinate bench of this court (Hon'ble Shri Justice S.C.Sinho) who has demitted the office long before. Having perused the petition and the averments of the same along with the affidavit so also the aforesaid order passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court, I have not found any material circumstance in the matter in which the aforesaid order could be modified. Apart this, I would like to mention that there is no provision under the law to modify the order in the manner as prayed by the applicant. Consequently, this petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order shall not come in the way of the applicant to take appropriate steps before the appropriate authori...
Ravishankar Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
1 W.P.No.4921o22. 3.2013 Shri S.K.Dubey, Advocate, with petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, Government Advocate, for the respondents No.1 and 2. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the following order in WP No.18187/12 on 29.10.2012 passed by this Court ADM Katni fixed the case on25.3.2013 for order: Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under section 322 and 323 of the M.P.Municipal Corporation Act, 1961 are pending before the Collector, Katni who has already ordered production of relevant documents, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to take up proceedings, on the request of the petitioner, in accordance with law and decide the matter by passing a reasoned order by hearing all concerned and perusing all documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed copy of proceedings vide Annexure P/8 dated 2.1.2013...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »