Madhya Pradesh Court May 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.
Ashok Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2013
Criminal Revision No.1876/2011 1.5.2013 Shri S.K.Dixit, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Punit Shroti, PL for the State. Heard on I.A.No.20451/2012, an application under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C.seeking permission to compromise the matter with applicant No.4 Sarju Prasad. Complainant/injured Rajesh Kumar Gupta is present in person. He has filed an affidavit in support of application. It is submitted that complainant and applicant No.4 Sarju Prasad are the residents of same village, they want to live peacefully, therefore, they have compromised the matter. In view of the above, the complainant is permitted to compromise the matter with applicant No.4 Sarju Prasad. Heard on I.A.No.20452/2012, which is a compromise petition. The application is allowed. Compromise is verified and accepted. Applicant No.4 Sarju Prasad is acquitted to the charge under Section 325/34 of the IPC. The fine amount, if any, has been deposited by applicant No.4 Sarju Prasad, be refunded to him. This petition ...
Sant Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2013
W.P.No.7792/2013 1/5/2013: Shri Umesh Shrivastava with Shri Tabrez Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for the respondents on advance notice. Challenging an order dated 21.4.2011 passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Gorakhpur, Jabalpur in Revenue Case No.13/ A-6-A/2010-11 correcting the Revenue Record of Village Gorakhpur, Katanga, Hathital and Rampur and showing the land to be Nazul Land, petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is a case of the petitioner that the land situated in village Gorakhpur bearing Bandobast No.601, KhaSr.No.598 measuring 14.2 acres and land bearing KhaSr.No.742 measuring 13.41 acres belonging to the petitioner's forefathers land was purchased by registered sale deed on 17.10.1927 and since then it is being used as Abadi land. It is neither the land belonging to the State Government not is it a Nazul land, but not in an illegal manner entries in the record has been changed which is challenged, showing the land to...
Smt. Sunita Tamrakar Vs. Shri Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2013
Conc Case No :856. / 2013 Smt. Sunita Tamrakar versus Shri Sanjay Singh and another 01.05.2013. Shri Sanjay Tamrakar, counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Govt. Advocate, 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 acc...
Dumarilal Choudhary Vs. Smt Rasmi Arun Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2013
Dumarilal Choudhary versus Smt. Rasmi Arun Sharma & Others Conc. No.1465 1. 5.2013: Shri A.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Vandana Shroti, learned counsel respondents. Smt. Shroti has produced before this Court photo-copy of an order dated 6.4.2013 passed by the Commissioner Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur rejecting an appeal filed by the petitioner. As appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Commissioner, petitioner is required to challenge the said order in accordance to law. Liberty for the same is granted to the petitioner. In view of the fact that order has been complied with, I see no reason to interfere into the matter. Respondents are discharged from the proceedings and application is disposed of. With the aforesaid the application is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Arun Kumar Nagpure Vs. Swati Nagpure
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2013
Writ Petition No ::3050. / 2013 Arun Kumar Nagpure versus Swati Nagpure 01.05.2013. Shri Amit Saini for the petitioner. Challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an interlocutory order-dated 29.1.2013 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur in Case No.115-A/2012, granting interim maintenance to the respondent wife after evaluating the totality of the circumstances, a sum of `10,000/- is granted to her apart from a sum of `3,000/- as litigation expenses; and, a sum of `500/- on each day for appearing in the Court. Challenge to this order of maintenance is made mainly on the ground that this maintenance is also granted to a major son, who is living with the respondent wife and as maintenance to a major son is prohibited both under section 125 CrPC and section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the order is perverse. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the impugned order and the material available on...
Lakhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2013
Cr.R. No.41/2013 1.5.2013 Shri Satyam Agrawal, counsel for the applicant. Shri Puneet Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the State. Heard on IA No.7900/2013, an application for final hearing at motion state. Considering the averments made in the application, the same is allowed. With the consent of the parties, heard finally. This revision has been preferred by the applicants under section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by judgment dated 3.1.2013 passed by Sessions Judge, Sehore in Cr. A. No.262/2012 whereby the appeal of the applicant has been dismissed and further the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned JMFC, Sehore vide judgment dated 11.10.2012 in Criminal Case No.1062/2012, wherein applicant has been convicted under Section 379 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulation, has been confirmed.2. The facts giving rise to this revision, in short, are that on 21.6.2009 at about 2.00 - 2.30 p.m. when one Devendra alias Dabbu p...
Smt. Santosh Devi Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2013
WA No.325 o1. 5.2013. Shri K.C.Ghilidyal for the appellant. Shri Abhijit Awasthy for the respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dt.14.3.13 in W.P.No.8355/2012 passed by the writ Court by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that the cause of action had arisen from Neemach District and the petition could have been filed at Indore Bench of this Court which is having territorial jurisdiction on Neemach District. After arguing the matter,learned counsel for the appellant submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty to file a fresh writ petition before the Indore Bench of this Court. However, the ad-interim writ dt.7.6.12 passed in the matter may be continued for a further period of two weeks. The prayer of the appellant is vehemently opposed by Shri Awasthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, who submitted that the writ Court while dismissing the writ petition allowed 30 days' time for continuatio...
Vijay Kumar Adivasi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2013
Criminal Revision No.479/2013 1.5.2013 Shri M. K.Pandey, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Akshay Namdeo, PL for the State. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This revision petition has been filed by the applicant under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act being aggrieved by judgment dated 17.1.2013 passed by FiRs.Additional Judge to the Court of FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in Criminal Appeal No.13/2013 affirming the order dated 4.1.2013 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Panna in Criminal Case No.3/2013 whereby the applicant has been refused to be released on supurdginama. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the judgment and order passed by the Courts below. As per prosecution case, on 15.12.2012 at about 5:00 PM, the applicant and co-accused committed gang-rape on the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix specifically stated that the applicant had caught hol...
Mohammad Sazid Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2013
M.Cr.C.No.12028/2012 1.5.2013 Shri A.K.Soni, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Punit Shroti, PL for the State. This is the second bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail. Previous application M.Cr.C.No.5671/2012 was dismissed on merits on 18.7.2012. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.64/2011 registered at P.S.Omti, District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 of the IPC and Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is falsely implicated in this case. After dismissal of the previous application, applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail in Crime No.65/2011 registered at P.S.Omti for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353 of the IPC and Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act. The aforesaid crime is also related with the same incident except the change in the complain...
Mohd. Naeem Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2013
Cr.R.No.731/2013 01.05.2013 Shri S.C.Datt, learned senior counsel with Shri Nishant Datt, counsel for the applicants. Shri Puneet Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the State. Heard on question of admission. Revision seems to be arguable, hence admitted for final hearing. Learned counsel for the State takes notice of this admission. Call for the record of the Courts below. Also heard on IA No.9192/2013, an application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail. The applicants have been convicted under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for 3 months each and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, with default stipulations. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that they have been falsely implicated in this case. They are in jail since 16/4/2013. He further submits that the revision would take considerable time to dispose of finally, therefore, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. Considering the fac...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 40
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »