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.
O. P. Gupta Vs. Dr. Devraj Birdi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-2013
CONC No.1750.11 CONC No.1750 of 2011 (O.P.Gupta versus Dr. Devraj Birdi,Principal Secretary, SC/ST Welfare Department, Bhopal and another) 19-03-2013 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard. Petitioner seeks action against respondents for non- compliance of order dated 05-01-2010 passed in Writ Petition No.4167/2003 and order dated 29-08-2011 passed in Contempt Case No.355/2010. In Writ Petition which was against supersession, recording a finding that the government having taken decision to the effect that the petitioner being senior to Shri S.S.Bhandari and was entitled to promotion on the post of Additional Director in place of Shri S.S.Bhandari, disposed of the petition directing that the effect, if not given, be given within two months with consequential benefit, including revision of pay, pension etc.That by order dated 29-08-2011 Contempt Case No.355/2010 was disposed of. Present contempt petition is filed a...
Rajbhan Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3456/2013 19.3.2013 Shri D.P.Patel, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 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 his arrest in connection with Crime No.44/2013 registered at P.S.Amarpatan, District Satna for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506/34 of the IPC. According to the prosecution story, it is alleged against the applicant that he along with co-accused entered into the house of complainant and assaulted him. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is falsely implicated in this case. He is a teacher at Government Primary School, Raikwar, Chhota Tola, Amarpatan. There are no prima facie ingredients of Section 452 of the IPC against the applicant. At the most, the case of the applicant would fall under Section 451 of the IPC, w...
Santosh Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-2013
1 M.Cr.C.No.9627/2012 M.Cr.C No.9627/2012 19.03.2013 Petitioner by Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, Advocate. Shri Punit Shroti, Panel Lawyer for respondent/ State. Respondent no.2 by Shri Anubhav Jain, Advocate. Present petition has been preferred under section 482 Cr.P.C for quashment of criminal case No.1683/2010 pending in the court of JMFC, Chhatarpur under section 498A IPC read with section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Earlier such petition M.Cr.C No.3349/2011 was dismissed for want of prosecution and restoration was declined with a liberty to file new petition. According to petition, on 09/05/2005 petitioner married to respondent no.2 and started living together in Bhopal. Right from the beginning, respondent no.2 used to quarrel with the petitioner on some or other issues. On 20/02/2007 while respondent no.2/wife left the house of the petitioner and started living with her parents in Chhatarpur, petitioner made a report (Annexure P-1) to Mahila Thana Bhopal. On 25/03/2008 petitioner filed...
Manoj Sharma @ Chikna Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1947/2006 Manot Sharma @ Chikna. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Mohan Patel, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent- State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 19th day of March, 2013) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25(1-B)(b) read with Section 4 of the Arms Act vide judgment dated 8.8.2006 passed by the CJ.Bhopal in Criminal Case No.7418/2004 and sentenced with one year's RI with fine of Rs.500/-. In Criminal Appeal No.203/2006 the learned Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bhopal vide judgment dated 31.10.2006 dismissed the appeal in toto. Being aggrieved with both the judgments, the applicant has filed the present revision.2. The prosecution case, in...
Dhannalal Vs. Ku.Bharti and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-2013
Criminal Revision No.656/2003 19.3.2013 None for the applicant even in the second round. None for the respondents. None appeared for the applicant on 10.10.2012, 11.1.2013 and 5.1.2013. None appeared for the applicant even on today. It appears that the learned counsel for the applicant does not want to prosecute the present revision filed by the applicant Dhannalal. Consequently, the present revision application is hereby dismissed in want of prosecution by maintaining the order dated 28.5.2003 passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa in Criminal Revision No.15/2003. Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court and revisionary Court for compliance. (N.K.Gupta) Judge bina...
Santoshi Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-2013
M.Cr.C.No.12876 o19. 03.2013 Shri Tabrez Khan, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rohani Prasad Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondent-State. Shri Pramod Chourasia, learned counsel for the objector - Chanda Bai. This case is listed today for appropriate order on the question of maintainability of this petition. On asking the applicant's counsel in this regard he seeks short adjournment to submit additional documents in the matter. In the available circumstance, this petition being filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.against the order dated 10.11.2010, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class in Criminal Case No.1116/10, framing the charges against the applicant for the offence of Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498-A of IPC, which is made revisable under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.before the appropriate forum is not entertainable under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.Consequently the same is hereby dismissed on the aforesaid technical grounds by extending a liberty to th...
Jagdish Prasad Barman Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-2013
Criminal Revision No.1987/2012 19.03.2013 Shri L.G.S.Baghel, counsel for the applicants. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Shri T.K.Mod, counsel for the complainant. The parties appeared before the Registrar (Judicial-I).A report has been received that the complainant Lalji Pandey was the victim for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC. The complainant entered into the compromise with his free consent and therefore, permission for compromise may be granted. Consequently, the permission is granted by accepting I.A.No.2856/2013. Heard on I.A.No.2857/2013, an application for compromise. Looking to the voluntariness of both the parties and reason as mentioned for consideration of I.A.No.2856/2013, the compromise application filed by the parties is hereby accepted. Hence, the result of compromise would be the acquittal of the applicants No.2 to 5 from the charge of the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC. In the light of the compromise, the present r...
M.P.Shasakiya Ayurved MahavidyalayIn Rajpatrit Shikshak Sangh, Gwalior ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-2013
Conc. No. 455 Of 2011 19.3.2013 Shri Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned counsel for respondents. Heard. This contempt petition is for punishing the respondents for No. complying with the order dated 28.01.2011 passed in W.P. No. 1461/2011 which was disposed of in the following terMs.After having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, it is suffice to observe that the legal notice issued by the petitioner be considered within a period of one month from the date of its communication along with copy of this order by respondents No. 1 and 2. If the competent authority is of the opinion that the appointment of respondent No. 11 is not proper, then by giving an opportunity of hearing, appropriate order may be passed and the appropriate person may be given the powers of drawing and disbursing. Respondents have filed the return; ...
Choti @ Sona Saket Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3455/2013 19.3.2013 Shri Satish Chaturvedi, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. Admit. Call for the case diary. Heard on I.A.No.6349/2013, which is an application for grant of ad-interim anticipatory bail. The applicant apprehends her arrest in connection with Crime No.89/2013 registered at P.S.City Kotwali, District Rewa for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a lady, she has been falsely implicated in the case. She is sister-in-law (Jethani) of the deceased, who is stated to have committed suicide at her matrimonial house. The applicant is living separately. It is alleged against the applicant that she used to pass sarcastic remarks to the deceased that she is a sterile. The applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, in the event of arrest, her reputation will be tarnished, therefore, she be released on ad-interim anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for State has o...
M.P.E.B.Th.Chairman and anr Vs. Laxman Tembhare
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-2013
F.A. No.189/2004 -1- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava F.A. No.189/2004 APPELLANTS 1 Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Defendants through the Chairman, M.P.E.B. Rampur, Jabalpur 2. Asset. Engineer (Officer-In-charge), M.P. Electricity Board, Lalbarra, Tahsil: Waraseoni, Distt. Balaghat (M.P.) 3. M.D. Patale, s/o not known, Lineman, H.O. Katangtola, P.O. & P.S. Lalbarra, Tahsil Waraseoni, Distt. Balaghat (M.P.) -Versus- RESPONDENT: Laxman Tembhare s/o Tej Ram Tembhare Plaintiff R/o Gram Patharshahi, P.S. Lalbarra, Tahsil Waraseoni, Distt. Balaghat. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Arup K. Das, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT {19032013} Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2003 passed by learned 1st Additional District...
- ‹ Prev
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- Next ›
- Last »