Madhya Pradesh Court April 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.
Guddan @ Jaipal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.521/2013 Guddan @ Jaipal and another VERSUS The State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate along with Shri Nishant Datt, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 5th day of April, 2013) The applicants were convicted for the offence punishable under sections 325/34 and 323/34 of IPC vide judgment dated 29.2.2012 passed by the learned JMFC, Narsinghpur (Sushri Prachi Patel) in criminal case No.3165/2010 and each sentenced for 1 year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- and fine of Rs.100/- respectively. In criminal appeal No.49/2012, the learned Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur vide judgment dated 16.3.2013 dismissed the appeal in toto. Bein...
Jawaharlal Chouksey Vs. Goverdhandas (D) Savitri Devi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
F.A.No.386/2001 05.04.2013 None for the appellant. Shri K.L.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent not R-1 (A) and R-1 (B).Shri Y.H.Khare, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. On 08.02.2013 the appellant appeared in person and he was directed to deliver the copies of applications to learned counsel appearing for respondents during the couRs.of the day. It is stated by learned counsel appearing for respondents that the copies have been delivered and respondent No.2 has stated that he has already filed the reply to the I.As. Looking to the fact that the respondent No.2 has obtained a decree of eviction against the appellant in the suit independently filed and in execution of that decree, respondent No.2 has obtained the possession of the demise premises and is making repair of the said building, also taking into note of the fact that such a couRs.was authorized by this Court by the order passed in this appeal, no case is made out to grant any interim order in favour of the appella...
Sunder Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.2677/2005 Sunder Vs. State of MP Present : Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Jha. For the appellant : Shri Subodh Kathar, advocate. For the respondent : Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, PL JUDGMENT (05.04.2013) The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.11.2005 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat in Session Case No.122/05 whereby the appellant has been found guilty of an offence punishable under section 307 of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- with an additional sentence of six months imprisonment, in case of default of deposit of the fine.2. The prosecution case against the appellant is that the appellant, on an altercation with his wife on 05.06.2005 at 8 PM, after pouring kerosene threw a burning chimney upon her, as a result of which she suffered burn injuries on her stomach, back and right hand.3. On receiving information from...
Smt. Usha Parashar Vs. Shri Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
Conc Case No :712. / 2013 Smt. Usha Parashar versus Shri Sanjay Singh and another 05.04.2013. Shri Sanjay Tamrakar, counsel for the applicant. Shri A.K.Chourasiya, GA for the respondents. The applicant herein is working as teacher and the grievance of the applicant is that the benefits of 5th pay commissions 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 applicant was also allowed and the respondents were directed to pay benefits of 5th Pay Commission recommendation to the applicant. not the grievance of the applicant 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 applicant by virtue of the acceptance of the ...
National Insurance Com.Ltd. Vs. Halki Bai and ors
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH ; JABALPUR M.A No.2148/2003 National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Halkai and three others For the Appellant : Shri D.N.Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 &2 : Shri K.N.Agarwal and Saket Agarwal Advocate ( pleads no instructions). For Respondent No.3 &4 : None although served. ORDER (04 /04 /2013 ) U.C. Maheshwari,J.The appellant/ insurer has filed this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 ( in short `the Act') being aggrieved by the award dated 8.8.03 passed by the MACT, Chhatarpur in MVC Case No.34/02 whereby the claim of respondents No.1 and 2 filed under section 166 of the Act regarding the vehicular death of their son Mathura Prasad aged 25 years, has been awarded against the appellant as well as respondents No.3 and 4 the registered owner and driver of the offending vehicle by saddling their joint and several liability for the sum of Rs.1,79,800/- along with interest on the same @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim pet...
Nadeem Musalman Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
1 W.P.No.19071/2012 4/4/2013: Shri Jayant Nikhra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ashok Chourasiya, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Challenging the order dated 14.8.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Chhindwara directing for externment of the petitioner from various Districts in accordance to the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 and the appellate order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jabalpur as contained in Annexure P/5 dated 23.10.2012, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner claims to be a resident of Police Station Kotwa, Tahsil and District Chhindwara. On 25.6.2012 vide Annexure P/1 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and in the show cause notice by making reference to 15 criminal cases that were initiated or were pending against the petitioner, petitioner was asked to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the District of Chhindwara and the neighboring Districts because of his criminal act...
R.K.Singh Vs. Venkatesh Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
1 M.Cr.C.No.958/07 & M.Cr.C.No.967/07 04.04.2013. Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.for petitioner Shiv Pal Singh in M.Cr.C.No.958/07 and Shri P.N.Dubey, Adv.for petitioner R.K.Singh in M.Cr.C.No.967/07. Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, PL for the respondent-State. Shri Vivek Baderia, Advocate for respondent No.2 to 4 in M.Cr.C.No.958/07, and for respondent No.1 to 3 in M.Cr.C.No.967/07. None for other respondents. Heard finally. ORDER As the controveRs.involved in the aforesaid two petitions are identical, I have heard both the matters analogously and propose to dispose of both the matters by this common order. These petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.has been filed in order to invoke the extra ordinary power of this Court to quash the adveRs.remarks passed against the petitioners by 4th Addl.Sessions Judge, Rewa in Criminal Revision No.282/06 on 16.11.06. In nut shell the facts of the case are that there was some dispute between Vyanktesh Singh, Hirendra Singh , Rajendra Singh against Mahesh Pratap Si...
Doulat Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2096/2013 4.4.2013 Shri B.J.Chourasia, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Akhilendra Singh, GA 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 is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.20/2013 registered at P.S.Hinauta, District Chhatarpur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409/34 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in this case. At the relevant time, the applicant was having additional charge of Secretary of Gram Panchayat Jhamtuli. The applicant paid the amount to the labourers on the basis of muster roll prepared by Sub-Engineer. Thus, the applicant has not misappropriated any amount. The applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, in the event of arrest, his reputation will be tarnished, therefore, he be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the Stat...
Babu Singh Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
-(1)- Cr. Appeal No.1710/2004 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1710/2004 Babu Singh Versus State of Madhya Pradesh PRESENT: Honble Shri Justice R.S. JHA, J.----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. Shweta Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, learned panel lawyer for the State/respondent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (04-04-2013) The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 1-10-2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in S.T. No.19/96 whereby the appellant Babu Singh has been found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 326 of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to five years' R.I. with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of the same a further sentence of R.I. for two years.2. The prosecution case is that the appellant alongwith several others accosted the victim Krishna Kant Tamrakar, poured ...
Kum. Kavita Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
CRR No.95/2012 Criminal Revision No.95/2012 4.4.2013 Shri A.K.Shukla, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1. Shri Prakash Upadhyay, counsel for the respondent No.2. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally. The applicant/prosecutrix has challenged the impugned order dated 26.11.2011 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S.T.No.269/2011, whereby the charge of offence punishable under section 376 read with section 109 of IPC were not framed against the respondent No.2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the prosecutrix/applicant was abducted by the main accused Rohit Tiwari and thereafter, he committed rape upon the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was called by the respondent No.2 and thereafter, the main accused was successful in committing the rape. It was stated by the prosecutrix that at the time of the incident, the respondent No.2 closed the door of the house, so that cries o...
- ‹ Prev
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- Next ›
- Last »