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.
Nandoo Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2144/2013 25.3.2013 Shri L.N.Sakle, counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, PL , for the State. Heard. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.114/2012 registered at Police Station Chandla, District Chhatarpur for offence punishable under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S.Act. As per prosecution, it is alleged that only one cannabis plant is said to have been seized from the possession of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 30.10.2012. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Trial would take considerable time to conclude finally, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case alongwith gravity of offence and period of custody, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view tha...
Komal Jodhwani @ Smt. Zoya Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
Komal Jodhwani & Anr. versus State & ORS.W.P.No.3930/2013 25/03/2013 Shri Z.M.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State. Petitioners claim to have attained majority and married each other, as is evident from the Marriage Certificate and other documents filed along with the writ petition. The document filed also goes to show that the petitioners have attained majority. Keeping in view the aforesaid, if the petitioners are married and are staying as husband and wife, respondents have no authority to interfere with the right of the petitioners to live as husband and wife. Accordingly, it is directed that on the petitioneRs.filing a certified copy of this order along with detail complaint before Respondent Nos.2 & 3, the said respondents shall ensure that the adequate protection is granted to the petitioners and they are not harassed. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules. (...
Ajit Kumar Bais Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
1 W.P.No.4197/2013 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...
Veerendra Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
1 M.Cr. C No.15521/12 25.3.2013 Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State/respondent no.1. Shri Anurag Shivhare, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Heard on the question of admission. The applicants/accused have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.for quashment of the FiRs.Information Report registered as Crime No.146/12, at Police Station Chichali, District Narsinghpur against the applicants for the offence of Sections 498-A of I.P.C.and under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Applicants counsel after taking me through the averments of the report in writing given by the respondent no.2 to the Station House Officer of the aforesaid Police Station (Annexure-A-2) and by referring some proceedings of Parivar ParameRs.Kendra Gadarwara (Annexure- A-3) said that, in view of the averment of this proceedings of Parivar ParameRs.Kendra, which was written after making the efforts for reconciliation between th...
Hemant Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2417/2013 25.3.2013 Shri Vasant Daniel, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Punit Shroti, PL for the State. Shri B.J.Chourasia, Advocate for the objector. 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 19.10.2012 in connection with Crime No.271/2012 registered at P.S.Civil Lines, District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. As per prosecution itself, it is alleged against the applicant that during the incident he caught hold injured Vinod. Nothing has been alleged against the applicant that he assaulted deceased Bachcha @ Pradeep. The applicant is in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he be released on bail. Learned counsel for State and the objector have opposed the application and submitted that applicant also came...
Jugge @ Ramratan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
CRR No.49/2013 Criminal Revision No.49/2013 25.3.2013 Shri A.D.Mishra, counsel for the applicant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally. The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 326 and 324 of IPC vide judgment dated 3.3.2010 passed by the learned JMFC, Panna (Smt. Siddhi Mishra) in criminal case No.627/2008 and sentenced for 3 yeaRs.rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and 1 year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-. In criminal appeal No.23/2010, the learned FiRs.Additional Judge to FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Panna vide judgment dated 12.12.2012, dismissed the appeal in toto. Being aggrieved with the judgments passed by both the Courts below, the applicant has preferred the present revision. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 7.12.2005, at about 6.30 p.m., the applicant was tying his buffaloes to a pole. The victim Manot directed h...
Sandeep @ Betu Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3124/2013 25.3.2013 Shri D.S.Chauhan, 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 20.2.2013 in connection with Crime No.98/2013 registered at P.S.Civil Line, District Rewa for the offence punishable under Sections 489-K, Kh & G of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He has no criminal past. 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 ...
Sankatha Kumar Singh Chandel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
1 W.P.No.4206/2013 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...
Smt. Shikha Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
R.P.No.189/2013 25/3/2013: Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the applicants. This application has been filed by the applicants herein Smt. Shikha Mishra and one Shri Dilip Kumar Shah. Even though in the original writ petition there was various other petitioners more than 40 but only two petitioners have chosen to file the review application. That being so, merely because the other petitioners have not been impleaded as parties, there is no irregularity in the matter. Office objection pertaining to not filing of certified copy and other particulars of the respondents are dispensed with. The original writ petition, W.P.No.10414/2010 (s) was disposed of by this Court in the light of law laid down in the case of Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.& Others - W.A.No.346/2008. Even though the benefit of payment of increment was granted but arrears accruing on revision of pay was denied by this Court in the writ petition mainly on the ground that there is a delay in approaching this Court...
Sheikh Rafiq Vs. Karim Bax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
Cr.R.No.188/2013 25.3.2013 Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, counsel for the applicants. Shri Adil Usmani, counsel for the respondent. With consent of learned counsel for the parties the present revision petition is hereby disposed of with the direction that the learned JMFC, Betul shall decide the application as per provisions under Section 68(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995 by considering all the objections raised by the parties. If it is found that the tenure of the respondent was already over and matter turned infructuous then such findings shall be specifically recorded. Both the parties be given an opportunity of hearing and production of all the documents which they possess. Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court as well as the appellate Court for information and compliance. (N.K.Gupta) Judge bina...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »