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.
Amar Sigh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3481/2013 18.3.2013 Shri S.K.Karan, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. This petition has been filed for modification of order dated 7.3.2013 passed in M.Cr.C.No.895/2013. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that due to mistake in the memo of M.Cr.C.No.895/2013, name of father of applicant No.2 Prahlad was wrongly mentioned as Sumat Singh in place of Guman Singh, therefore, the order dated 7.3.2013 be modified to that extent. On due consideration of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is allowed. Committal Court/trial Court is directed to read the name of father of applicant No.2 Prahlad as Guman Singh in place of Sumat Singh in the order dated 7.3.2013 passed in M.Cr.C.No.895/2013. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. (G.S.Solanki) Judge PB...
M/S Chambal Developers Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
W.P.NO.606/13 18-03-2013 Shri Sudhir K.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Advocate for the State. Seeking a direction to the respondents to make payment of the pending bills of the petitioner without demanding 'No Objection Certificate' from the Mines Department, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The petitioner was granted a contract work for construction of Likhad Lohara UMr.Bamahanwada Length 11 KM, in a sponsored scheme. The work has been concluded and not the payment of work done has to be settled. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not settling payment of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner should submit royalty receipt or 'No Objection Certificate' from the Mining Department with regard to the royalty consumed by the petitioner for execution of the contract. Inter alia contending that the payment of royalty and submission of 'No Objection Certificate' is not required in view of the l...
Abhishek Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3294/2013 18.3.2013 Shri Shyam Vishwakarma, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, for the respondent-State. Heard. Admit. Call for the case diary. Also heard the learned counsel for the parties on IA No.6042/2013 for grant of ad-interim anticipatory bail. Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.64/2013 registered at Police Station Cantt. Jabalpur for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him. Applicant is ready to co-operate in the investigation. Applicant is brother-in- law (Devar) of deceased Kajal, who said to have been committed suicide by consuming some poisonous acid within seven years of her marriage. The general allegation is levelled against the applicant that he committed cruelty in regard to demand of dowry. The applicant is a student of ...
Roshan Lal Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1749/2013 18/03/2013 Shri Brahmendra Pathak, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, PL for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.application filed by applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.334/12, registered at police station Jiyawan, District Singrauli for the offence punishable under sections 323, 294, 506, 374 of IPC and section 3 (1) (10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. As per prosecution, originally the dispute was for labour and during said incident it is said that applicant uttered the name of complainant by caste Kol which comes under the scheduled tribes. It is further submitted that at the the time of incident the name of caste was not uttered at all by this applicant therefore, no case is made out u/s 3 (1) (10) of SC/ST (Prevention of...
Sahir Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3316/2013 18.3.2013 Shri Pramod Thakre, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, PL, for the respondent-State. 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.362/2012 registered at Police Station Garhakota, District Sagar for offence punishable under Sections 327, 329, 294, 506, 342/34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. Initially applicant was released on anticipatory bail for the offences punishable under Sections 327294. 506, 342 ,34 of IPC. Thereafter, at the time filing the charge, an offence punishable under Section 329 of IPC has been added against the applicant, therefore he apprehends against his arrest. He has not misused the liberty granted to him during bail. Similarly placed co-accused Rohit Husain, Niyamat Husain, Salamat Husain have already been enlarged on anticipatory...
Smt. Nutan Fouzdar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.2334 of 2012 Smt. Nutan Fouzdar VERSUS State of M.P. Shri Manish Datt Senior Advocate with Shri Yogesh Soni, counsel for the applicant. Shri S. K. Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Criminal Revision No.2371/2012 Pawan Chouhan VERSUS State of M.P. Shri Prakash Upadhyay and Shri Prashant Dubey, counsel for the applicant. Shri S. K. Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Criminal Revision No.152/2013 Ashok VERSUS State of M.P. Shri S. K. Gangrade, counsel for the applicant. Shri S. K. Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 18th day of March, 2013) These three revisions are connected with the common order...
Bharat Milan Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2847/2013 18.3.2013 Shri Surendra Singh, Sr.Counsel with Shri Mukesh Pandey, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. Shri Deependra Mishra, Advocate for the objector. 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.41/2013 registered at P.S.Ajaygarh, District Panna for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294, 307, 506-B of the IPC. Learned Sr.Counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is falsely implicated in this case. A counter case has also been registered against complainant party vide Crime No.40/2013. According to the prosecution, it is alleged that during the incident the applicant had assaulted complainant by butt of a gun, due to which he got injured. Thus, no case under Section 307 of the IPC is made out against the applicant. At the most, the case of the applicant would fall under ...
Vishnu Pratap Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
W.P.No.3178/2013 18.3.2013 Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Manot Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.4. It is not disputed that the election to the Board of Directors has been held and result has been announced. Hence, we consider it appropriate that the matter be decided by Election Tribunal under Rule 64(2)(v) of the M.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to move to the Election Tribunal. Prayer allowed. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. Stay granted by this Court on 1.3.2013 stands vacated. (S.A.BOBDE) (RAJENDRA MENON) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Mrs.mishra...
Rakesh Vs. Smt. Meena
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
Criminal Revision No.105/2007 18.03.2013 Shri Ranjit Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Shri A. Dubey, Advocate for the respondent. Heard on admission. Vide order dated 3.5.2006 passed by the learned JMFC Burhanpur in Misc. Criminal Case No.38/2004, a maintenance of Rs.700/- was granted to the daughter of the respondent, but the maintenance application of the respondent was dismissed. In Criminal Revision No.134/2006 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur vide order dated 22.11.2006 granted maintenance of Rs.700/- to the respondent from 9.7.2004. being aggrieved with the order dated 22.11.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Burhanpur the applicant preferred the present revision. The brief facts relating to the present revision are that the respondent moved an application for maintenance before the trial Court with the pretext that the applicant was harassing her for demand of dowry and he was in habit to assault her. The intimation was given to Maya, sister o...
Darpan Singh Rajpal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2936/2013 18.3.2013 Shri Manish Datt, Sr.Counsel with Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the applicants. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicants under section 438 of Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.119/2013 registered at P.S.Hoshangabad, District Hoshangabad for the offence punishable under Sections 327, 294, 506, 341, 323 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. Except the offence under Section 327 of the IPC, remaining offences are bailable and triable by the Magistrate. The applicants are tax payeRs.They do not have criminal past. Since the applicants made complaint against some Police personnels, therefore, they falsely implicated the applicants through the complainant. The applicants are ready to co-operate in the investigation and trial. They are reputed citizen of...
- ‹ Prev
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- Next ›
- Last »