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.
Ram Kishore @ Guddu @ Gundu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2699/2013 18.3.2013 Shri Amit Jain, 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 13.11.2012 in connection with Crime No.567/2012 registered at P.S.Bina, District Sagar for the offence punishable under sections 366, 376 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The prosecutrix is more than 20 years of age. She went with the applicant with her free will, stayed with him for more than one month and after returning back to her parental house, she lodged false and concocted report against the applicant. 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...
Jang Bahadur Singh Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
M.C.C.No.301 18. 03-2013 Heard Shri K.L.Gupta, learned counsel for applicant on the application for restoration of S.A.No.56/2013. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that as the file of the aforesaid appeal was kept with another file in his office and was not traceable, therefore, the order passed by this Court dated 30-1-2013 could not be complied with, which resulted in dismissal of the appeal for want of compliance of the Court's order. The application is supported by an affidavit filed by the counsel for the applicant and as the reasons stated therein appear to be bona fide, the application for restoration is allowed. S.A.No.56/2013 be restored to its original number subject to compliance of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid second appeal dated 30-1-2013 by curing the default within a period of seven days from today, if has not already been cleared. A copy of this order be placed in the record of S.A.No.56/2013. M.C.C.stands allowed acc...
Virendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
W.P. No. 14910 Of 2012 18.3.2013 Shri Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondent State. Heard. Issue raised in this petition as to whether it is within the jurisdiction of respondent No. 3, Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), district Panna to initiate proceedings and pass order under Rule 18 of M.P. Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Prohibition and Storage) Rules, 2006 is no more res integra and has been settled at rest by Division Bench of this Court in Rajeev Agrawal v. State of M.P. and others (W.A. No. 1320/2011) decided on 21.3.2012 wherein while taking note of provisions contained in Rule 8 of 2006 Rules and more particularly subrule 5 it has been held: From the reading of the above quoted rule, it is clear that the order under subrule (5) can be passed by the Collector only as a measure to compound the offence punishable ...
Rakesh Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2557 o18. 03.2013 Shri Kishore Roy, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Rohani Prasad Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondent -State. Heard on the question of admission. The applicants accused have preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.for quashment of the FIR registered as Crime No.399/12 against the applicants at P.S.Bijuri, district Anooppur for the offence of Section 392 of IPC. As alleged the applicants herein have committed road robbery of a truck. The applicants' counsel after taking me through the papers placed on record including the copy of the FIR argued that in the FIR lodged by the complainant- Driver of the truck, the name of the applicant No.3, Guddu was not mentioned while the name of applicant Nos.1 and 2 were also implicated in the same under false pretext by fabricating the false story. In such premises, it could not be deemed that the applicants had committed the alleged offence of robbery and prayed for quashment of the FIR. Havin...
Santosh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2767/2013 18.3.2013 Shri Ashish Sinha, 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 4.2.2013 in connection with Crime No.54/2013 registered at P.S.Kotwali, District Sehore for the offence punishable under sections 306/34 of the IPC and 7/8, 11/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC have not been found against the applicant. The applicant is permanent resident of District Sehore, there is no possibility of his absconding from justice. 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 ...
M.P. Housing Board Hathital Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
W.A.No.1244/2011 18/03/2013 Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3. Shri Mukhtar Ahmad, learned counsel for Respondent No.4. Admit. The matter shall be heard finally. The main dispute in this writ appeal pertains to the fact as to whether possession of the land in question was taken over before the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 came into force. Based on this fact, the question of abatement of the proceedings as contemplated under Section 4 of the Repeal Act has to be decided. Even though in the order passed under appeal, the learned Single Judge has found that available on record are two different dates with regard to taking over of possession and it is further held that notice under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was not issued and by holding that possession is not taken over in acco...
Ashok Verma Vs. Tarun Ku.Saxena
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
M.Cr.C. No.3018/2013 18.3.2013 Shri Shivam Singh, counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K. Kesharwani, PL for the respondent/State. With the consent of the parties, heard finally. 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. 324/2011 registered at Police Station Hoshangabad, District Hoshangabad for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 420, 120B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case along with his parents. He has no criminal past. His parents have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 6.12.2012 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 11849/2012. The case of this applicant is similar to them. It is a matrimonial case and in the event of his arrest,...
Heidelberg Cement India Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
W.P.No.3611/2013 18.3.2013 Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel with Shri N.B.Joshi, Shri Prem Francis and Shri Kunal Thakre, for the petitioner. Shri R.S.Siddique, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent No.1. Shri V.S.Shroti, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Vikram Johri for respondents No.3 and 4. Admit. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F.within one week returnable by 18.6.2013. We are of the prima facie view that there is an error in the note occurring in Notification dated 13th December 2012. In that the word "with" used in the phrase "which were operating as on the 4th April, 2011 with requisite valid environmental clearance" ought to have been without for it to be comprehensible. Hence, we consider it appropriate to stay the impugned order Annexure P/12 dated 22.2.2013 and further direct that there shall be no coersive action against the petitioner. Certified Copy as per rules. (S.A.BOBDE) (RAJENDRA MENON) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Mrs.mishra...
Jaideep Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1693/2013 18.3.2013 Shri M.S.Jain, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. 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.37/2012 registered at P.S.Ghamapur, District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal past. During the investigation of aforesaid crime, co-accused Ajju @ Ajay and Bablu @ Dilip disclosed that they purchased contraband (smack) from Dilip Singh and applicant Jaideep Singh. In the receipt taken from the possession of co-accused Ajju @ Ajay, name has been written has Jaibeer Singh and the applicant is not Jaibeer Singh. The applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, in the event of arrest, his reputation will be tarnished, therefore, he be enlarge...
R.K. Dubey Vs. M/S Tridev Duplex Boards Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
Mcr.C.No.1407 o18. 03.13 Shri Abhijeet Thakur, counsel for the applicant. Shri Sanjeev Tuli, counsel for the respondent. The Applicant/ accused has filed this petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 17.9.2012 passed by the JMFC, Bhopal in criminal case No.7578/12 whereby in a private complaint filed by the respondent, cognizance of the offence of section 403 and 406 of the IPC was taken against him. At the outset, respondent's counsel submits that he has already filed the application on behalf of the respondent before the trial court to withdraw the impugned complaint and, in such premises, respondent does not want to prosecute such complaint further and prayed to dismiss this petition without considering merits of the matter. In view of the aforesaid submission of the respondent's counsel, I am not inclined to pass any order on merits of the petition. Consequently, subject to verification of the aforesaid submission of the respondent's counsel, this...
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- Next ›
- Last »