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 Sajeevan Sen Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-2013
M.Cr.C. No.3668/2013 26.3.2013 Shri K.S. Baghel, counsel for the applicant. Shri Puneet Shroti, 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. 58/2013 registered at Police Station Sarai, District Singraulifor offence punishable under Sections 420, 120B of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He has no criminal past. The applicant is a Bank Manager of District Co operative Central Bank, Branch at Niwas. It is only allegation against him that he has not inquired about Pan Card Number of Ram Sajeevan. In this way he was involved in the conspiracy of committing the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. He is not the beneficiary in the transaction. The applicant is a reputed perso...
Devilal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2850/2013 26.3.2013 Shri M.K.Tripathi, counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, PL, for the State. Heard on IA No.7291/2013, an application for urgent hearing. Considering the averment, application is allowed. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.The applicant is in custody since 7.2.2013 in connection with Crime No.14/2013 or 17/2013 registered at Police Station Rahatgaon, District Harda for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366,376 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Prosecutrix is more than 18 years of age. Prosecutrix herself had gone with the present applicant on her free will and lived with him for about seven days but no complaint in regard to commit rape has been made to anyone. Thereafter, when she returned to her parental home, she lodged a false and concocted report against the applicant. The applicant is in jail and trial would take considerable time for its conclu...
Smt. Q. George Vs. Shri Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
CONC. No.638/2013 25-03-2013 Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents. The petitioner herein is working as teacher and the grievance of the petitioner is that the benefits of 5 th pay commission recommendation as directed by this court is not being paid. The question has been decided in various cases and in W.P.No.2029/2000 (V.V.Asthana and others versus State of M.P.and others directions have been issued for granting the benefits and based on the order passed in the case of V.V.Asthana (supra) the petition of the petitioner was also allowed and the respondents were directed to pay benefits of 5th Pay Commission recommendation to the petitioner. not the grievance of the petitioner is that the said benefit is not being granted even though order was passed in the year 2004/2005 Inter alia contending that the benefits accruing to the petitioner by virtue of the acceptance of the 5th Pay Commission recommendation ...
Jagdish Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
Jagdish Singn & ORS.versus State & ORS.W.P.No.2905/2013 25/03/2013 Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Issue notice. At this stage Shri R.P.Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Santosh Yadav, appears and takes notice on behalf of Respondent No.4. A copy of this petition along with annexures be served on learned counsel for Respondent No.4, who may seek instructions in the matter. Considering the fact that in the show cause notice Annexure-P1, no particulars are given and inspite of directions issued by this Court on 27.2.2013, the State Government has not given any specific reply, further action against the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned notice shall be kept in abeyance. List the matter in the week commencing from 15th of April, 2013. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Pappu @ Mohd Ansar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.535/2013 25.3.2013 Shri Raman Patel, 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 23.7.2012 in connection with Crime No.99/2012 registered at P.S.Chitrangi, District Singrauli for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The prosecutrix is more than 16 years of age. She went with the applicant with her free will, they travelled to various places like Jharkhand, Noida, Delhi, etc.but she did not make any complaint to anyone, thereafter, 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 co...
Sanjay Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3428/2013 25.3.2013 Shri Pramod Thakre, 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 22.2.2013 in connection with Crime No.64/2013 registered at P.S.Civil Lines, District Chhatarpur for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the M.P.Excise Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. As per prosecution, 73 bulk liters of illicit liquor alleged to have been seized from the possession of the applicant. 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 ...
Musheer Mohammad Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
Writ Petition No ::2116. / 2013 Musheer Mohammad Khan versus State of MP and another 25.03.2013. Ms.Jayalaxmi Aiyar for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State/respondents 1 and 2. Challenging order-dated 15.1.2013 Annexure P/1, passed by the 13th Civil Judge Class II, Bhopal in Execution Case No.67/2012, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner claims to be in possession of agricultural land bearing KhaSr.No.7/2 area 23.61 Acres, situated in Village Keerat Nagar, Tehsil Huzoor, District Bhopal. Certain disputes have risen with regard to the land in question and, therefore, a suit for declaration was filed. The suit has been decreed, FiRs.Appeal and Second Appeal having also being decided, ultimately a decree has been passed declaring the petitioner to be owner and Bhumiswami of the land in question. Seeking execution of the said decree by entry of petitioners name in the revenue records, an application was filed in the Executing Court. The Ex...
Ram Swaroop Luhar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE VIMLA JAIN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2929/2000 Ramswaroop Aged 37 years S/o Durga Prasad Luhar Occupation Driver R/o Village Tohiyapura Kulpahad Hall Teharka District Tikamgarh (MP) Appellant Versus State of Madhya Pradesh Through Police Station Teharka District Tikamgarh (MP) Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Smt Durgesh Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the State. Date of hearing :19. 3.2013 Date of judgment:25. 3.2013 (JUDGMENT ) Per: Vimla Jain, J Appellant Ramswaroop Luhar preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.10.2000 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Sessions Trial No.66/99, 2 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Provision Sentence Under Section 302 of IPC...
Ashok @ Bhim Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
1 M. Cr.C.No.15383/12. 25.3.2013 . Shri Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned G.A.for the respondent No.1. Shri Prashant Kohare, learned counsel for respondent No.2. The applicants/ accused No.1 to 6 as well as respondent No.2 are also present in person, identified by their respective counsel. The applicants/ accused have preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 23.11.2012 passed by JMFC Jabalpur in Criminal Case No.2588/2007 dismissing the joint application of the petitioners and respondent No.2 filed for compounding the offence with a prayer of quashment of the FIR registered as Crime No.329/2004 against the applicants at P.S.Gorakhpur, Jablpur on 29.4.2004 for the offence under Section 498- A of IPC and of Dowry Prohibition Act. In addition to the aforesaid the prayer for quashment of the entire charge sheet filed by the aforesaid Police Station after holding investigation before the JMFC Jabalpur in criminal...
Neeraj Kumar Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.13047 o25. 03.13 Shri Suyash Tripathi, counsel for the applicant. Shri R.P.Tiwari, GA for respondent No.1/ State. None for respondent No.2 although represented. Heard on the question of admission. The applicant/ co-accused has preferred this petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashment of the FIR registered as Crime No.38/12 at P.S.GRP Shahdol against the various accused including the applicant whose name has been stated as Station Master, in the FIR for the offence of section 354-A, 294,323,342,506-B and 34 of the IPC. The applicant's counsel after taking me through the averments of the FIR as well as the averments of the petition argued that the applicant along with other co-accused has been falsely implicated in the case by fabricating the false story. As such the applicant was posted as Station Master at such station where the complainant party being related with the coal mafia were used to carry to carry-out the illegal activities and on taking steps against th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »