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.
Lullu Bhai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
Writ Petition No ::6441. / 2010 Lullu Bhai versus State of MP and others 25.03.2013. Shri Mukesh Pandey for the petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, Government Advocate, for State. Shri Pankaj Dubey for respondent No.5. Petitioner has filed this writ petition and the relief claimed by him reads as under: (i) That, this Honble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to issue the writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.5 for lodging the FIR against the respondents No.7 and 8 under section 409, 420 and 467 IPC. Respondent No.5, the Chief Execution Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Ajaygarh, District Panna one Shri C.S.Singh, represented by Shri Pankaj Dubey has filed an affidavit, wherein it is stated that FIR Document A, has been lodged against the persons concerned and the matter is pending before the Police Authorities. Considering the aforesaid, as the only relief claimed by the petitioner is granted as is evident from the affidavit filed, no further action is required to be taken. ...
Sohanlal Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
Sohanlal & ORS.versus State & ORS.W.P.No.1376/2013 25/03/2013 None for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State. Inter-alia contending that family of the petitioners are being harassed by the police authorities and, therefore, seeking a direction to the respondents not to harass the petitioneRs.this writ petition has been filed. From the reply filed, it is seen that a report with regard to missing person was submitted by one Shri Lavkush Lodhi, a resident of Village-Madai, District-Satna and he raised a complaint with regard to missing of his daughter, 17 years of age. Annexure-R1 is the copy of the complaint. While investigating the complaint, missing person was recovered from the possession of the son of the petitioner namely Anil Kumar Sahu and it is stated that an offence under Sections 363/366 of I.P.C.bearing Crime No.546/2012 has been registered against Shri Anil Kumar Sahu, son of the petitioner Shri Sohanlal Sohanlal & ORS.versu...
Smt. Pushpa Devi JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
M.Cr.C. No.2288/2013 25.3.2012 Shri Ashok Lalwani, counsel for the applicants. Shri C.K. Mishra, GA , for the respondent/State. Shri Ashish Shroti, counsel for the objector. Heard. This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.60/2013 registered at Police Station Kolar Road, Bhopal for offence punishable under Sections 420/34 of IPC. As per prosecution it is alleged against the applicants that at the time of selling the disputed plot, they suppressed the fact that there is no plot No.37 on the South of disputed plot and thereby fraudulently deceived the complainant. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. He further submitted that applicants had sold the plot No. 36 in the same condition as they purchased to Bhupendra Singh ...
Jagdish Prasad Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3148/2013 25.3.2013 Shri Surendra Singh, Sr.Counsel with Shri Manish Mishra, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Punit Shroti, PL for the State. Shri G.P.Patel, Advocate for the objector. 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.100/2013 registered at P.S.Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 341, 294, 506/34 of the IPC. Learned Sr.Counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. Though there is allegation in the FIR that one of the accused has used sharp edged weapon (Baka).however, no such corresponding injury has been found on the injured person, therefore, at the most it would be a case under Sections 323, 325 of the IPC, which are bailable. The applicants have no criminal past. They are ready to co-operate in the investigation an...
Pradeep Agrawal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
M.Cr.C. No.326/2012 25.3.2013 Shri Rajendra Gupta, counsel for the applicant. Shri Puneet Shroti, PL, for the respondent/State. Heard. 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. 455/2012 registered at Police Station M.P. Nagar, Bhopal for offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He has no criminal past. As per prosecution itself, on the basis of statement of coaccused and partner Ashok Soni, cartoon of Saris has already been seized from the possession of the present applicant. Nothing is required to be seized from his possession. Previously the applicant was released on anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court, Mumbai. He is read...
Raghuvansh Prasad Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.751/2013 25.3.2013 Shri Manish Datt, Sr.Counsel with Shri Ajay Mishra, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Punit Shroti, 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.297/2012 registered at P.S.Laur, District Rewa for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34, 304-B of the IPC and 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant No.1 is father-in-law and applicant No.2 is mother-in-law of deceased Anita, who is alleged to have died unnatural death. As per the statement of Brijlal (father of deceased).the marriage of deceased was solemnized with Rajnish (son of the applicants) in the year 1999, therefore, no case under Section 304-B of the IPC is made out against the applicants. Nothing is required to be seize...
Vinod Kumar Singhai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
Writ Petition No ::6194. / 2012 Vinot Kumar Singhai versus State of MP and others 25.03.2013. Shri L.S.Singh, Senior Advocate, with Shri J.L.Soni for the petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, Government Advocate, for the State. Shri Sanjeev Mishra and Shri Swapnil Sohgaura for respondent Nos.5 and 6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to move the appropriate authority for seeking a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Permission granted. If an application is filed under section 18, seeking reference, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Pandu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3007/2013 25.3.2013 Shri C.L.Sethi, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Punit Shroti, PL for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. The applicants are in custody since 1.2.2013 in connection with Crime No./Van Apradh No.1196/24 registered at P.S.Van Vibhag, Gudi, District Khandwa for the offence punishable under Sections 26(1) of Bhartiya Van Adhiniyam 1927, Sections 3, 2 (ka) of Lok Sampatti Nuksani Adhiniyam and Sections 15, 16, 17 of Vanya Prani Sanrakshan Adhiniya, 1972. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. All the offences are triable by the Magistrate. Charge sheet has been filed. The applicants are in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, they be released on bail. Learned counsel for State has opposed the application. On due consideration of the contention raised by the learned counsel for th...
K. Dashrath Ramaiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.12901 o25. 03.13 Shri Akhilesh Jain, counsel for the applicant. On behalf of the applicant/accused, this petition is preferred under section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashment of the Forest Crime (POR) No.23635/17 registered on 15.1.2010 for the offence of section 9,39,44,50 read with section 51 of the Wild Live Protection Act,1972. As alleged, some skin of the wild animal was found in possession of the applicant in his vehicle, on which, the impugned crime was registered. In the couRs.of the arguments on admission, in response of some query of the court, instead to argue further, applicant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition as not pressed with liberty to raise all the objections and grounds stated in the petition at the appropriate stage of the trial in defense of the applicant. Considering such prayer the petition is hereby dismissed as not pressed with liberty aforesaid. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL...
Komal Chand JaIn Vs. the Iv the Additonal Session Judge
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
1 MCC No.363/2013 25/3/2013: Shri Amit K. Bajpai, learned counsel for the applicant. This application has been filed for restoration of W.P.No.160/1998 which was dismissed on 28.2.2002. In the application filed for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I.A.No.3232/2013, no specific averment is made with regard to the delay. Only a vague averments are made. Delay of more than 11 years has not properly been explained. In fact, the application for condonation of delay is lacking any material particulaRs.Accordingly, petitioner is directed to file detailed application for condonation of delay explaining day to day delay in filing the application. List after four weeks. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Mrs.mishra...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »