Madhya Pradesh Court August 2013 Judgments
Kewal Singh and ors. Vs. Seth Radhavallabh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Second Appeal No.413/1998 Kewal Singh and others. VERSUS Seth Radhavallabh and others. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Ashok Lalwani, counsel for the appellants. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 1st day of August, 2013) The learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Berasiya vide judgment and decree dated 30.4.1994, in civil suit No.61-A/ 1989 partly decreed the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs that the right of the plaintiffs was declared in the suit property and an injunction was granted to auction the house, situated on the property. In Civil Appeal No.3- A/1997, the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Bhopal vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.1997 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved with the judgments passed by both the Courts below, the applicants have pre...
Tag this Judgment!Manveer Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3737/2013 30/08/2013 Shri Manish Datt, Sr.counsel with Shri Ajay Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Yogendra Das Yadav, PL for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the second application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. The fiRs.application was dismissed as withdrawn on 22/02/13. Applicant has been arrested on 12/12/12 in connection with Crime No.1336/12 registered at P.S.T.T.Nagar, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under sections 366, 420, 384, 342, 506, 34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He is not a main accused. As per prosecution itself, applicant has not been involved in abduction of the prosecutrix Kavita. It is further submitted that nothing is alleged against the applicant regarding confinement of prosecutrix. The only allegation against him is that he took the money on the direction of other co-accused persons. Charge sheet has alread...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Belvanshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
W.P.No.13980/2013 (Ravi Belwanshi..versus State of MP and otheRs.30-08-2013 Heard Shri V.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 4-7-2013 by which the petitioner's contractual appointment as Sub Engineer under the Mahatma Gandhi Rashtriya Gramin Rojgar Guarantee Scheme (MANREGA) in the Janpad Panchayat, Bichhiya has been cancelled. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner had been appointed on contract basis as Sub Engineer and was terminated by the impugned order without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner had been given the work of 15 Gram Panchayats although he was required to supervise only 10 Gram Panchayats and in such circumstances the impugned order deserves to be quashed. It it also alleged that the petitioner was not given one month's notice as required by law and, the...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Daya Shankar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
M.Cr.C.No.7178/2012 30.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for the applicant-State. Heard on admission. This application for grant of leave to file appeal has been preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved with the judgment dated 18/4/2012 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Trial No.375/2011, whereby respondent has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376(1).450 and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20/12/10, prosecutrix lodged a report to the effect that 9 months back, being a student of Class IX in Sarasvati Shishu Mandir, when she had gone in the classroom for keeping her bag and was all alone, respondent, who was posted there as Hindi Teacher, came inside, pressed her mouth and subjected her to rape after throwing her on the ground. He threatened that he would fail her in Class IX if she disclosed the incident to anyon...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramesh thete
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.9099/2013 Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.9100/2013 Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.9042/2013 Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.9039/2013 Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.9043/2013 Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.9037/2013 30.8.2013 Per B. D. Rathi, J.Shri Aditya Adhikari, Advocate, for the SPE/Lokayukt None for the respondents. Heard on admission. This common order shall govern the disposal of aforesaid applications viz. M.Cr.C. Nos. 9099/13, 9100/13, 9042/13, 9039/13, 9043/13 and 9037/13 for grant of leave to appeal against the judgments dated 24.4.2013 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge designated as Special Judge (for Lokayukt Cases), Jabalpur, whereby respondent-accused Ramesh Thete has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act.) and Sections 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC.). Respondent- accus...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Shobharam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
M.Cr.C.No.5837/2010 30.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri S.K.Kashyap, Government Advocate for the applicant- State. Shri Kamlesh Mishra, Advocate for the respondent. Heard on I.A.No.10494/10 for condonation of delay in filing this application for leave to appeal. As per Office note, the application is barred by 52 days. Considering the reasons assigned therein, the I.A.is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Heard on admission. This application for grant of leave to file appeal has been preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved with the judgment dated 29/1/2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Sessions Trial No.28/09, whereby respondent Shobharam has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that in the night of 5/12/08, when the prosecutrix was all alone in her home, at about 9 p.m., respondent trespassed into her house and ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrugendra Singh Bundela Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
Cr.A.No.2007/2013. 30.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Sumit Raghuwanshi, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent no.1-State. Heard on admission. This criminal appeal has been preferred by victim Mrugendra Singh Bundela under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the inadequate sentence passed in Sessions Trial No.168/2010, by IX Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal on 30/05/2013, whereby respondent Nos.2 and 3 namely Ashok Veer Vikram Singh alias Bhaiyaraja and Bhupendra Singh alias Halke Bhaiya, have been sentenced only to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- for their conviction respectively under Section 302 read with 120B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC.).In addition, Ashok stands convicted under Sections 25(1B)(a) & 27 of the Arms Act, while Bhupendra has been convicted under Sections 120B and 201 of the IPC and sentenced accordingly. Prosecution case, in...
Tag this Judgment!Pintu @ Pradeep Kumar and anr. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
Criminal Appeal No.867/1997 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.867/1997 Appellants :1. Pintu @ Pradeep Kumar aged about 19 years S/o Shiv Kumar Mishra, Student 2. Sanjay Mishra, aged about 20 years s/o Basant Kumar, Student Both residents of Village Silodi P.S. Naurojabad, District-Shahdol, M.P. Vs. Respondent : The State of Madhya Pradesh Present: Hon. Shri Justice B.D.Rathi For appellant : Shri S.K. Tiwari, Advocate For the respondent : Shri C.K. Mishra, Government Advocate JUDGMENT ( 30/8/2013) This appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code.) against the judgment dated 9.4.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Umaria, District Shahdol in Sessions Trial No.53/96, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years, while co-accused Gopal and Kunjbihari were acquitted of the offences charged with.2. Accordin...
Tag this Judgment!Vivek Gupta @ Jaiswal Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
1 Cr.A. Nos. 1861/03, 1986/03 & 2093/03 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1861/2003 Appellant: Vivek Gupta @ Jaiswal S/o Babulal Jaiswal, aged about 24 years R/o Kanchanpur, Police Station Adhartal Jabalpur (M.P.). Vs. Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh & Criminal Appeal No.1986/2003 Appellant: Hargovind Sharma S/o Gokul Prasad Sharma aged 22 years R/o Kanchanpur, Jabalpur (M.P.). Vs. Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh & Criminal Appeal No.2093/2003 Appellant: Mantu @ Hemant S/o Late Shri Kallu Kachhi Patel, aged 26 years R/o old Kanchanpur, Police Station Adhartal, Tahsil & District Jabalpur (M.P.). Vs. Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh Shri T.S.Ruprah, Senior Advocate with Ms. Seema Jaiswal, Advocate for the appellant in Cr.A. No.1861/03. Shri Pradeep Naveriya, Advocate for the appellant in Cr.A. No.1986/03. Shri P.C.Lodhi, Advocate for the appellant in Cr.A. No.2093/03. Shri Yogesh Dhande, Govt. Advocate for the respondent-State. ****** Present: HONOURA...
Tag this Judgment!Vikas Kumar Bajhal Vs. Vindeshwari Pathak
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
Misc. Criminal Case No.10752/2013 30.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Heard on admission. This is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code.) challenging the order dated 03/06/2013 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge designated as Special Judge (under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988).Katni, whereby application under Section 156(3) of the Code has been rejected. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are Officers and Employees of Sulabh International Social Service Organisation, respondent no.5 is the then Mayor of Nagar Palika Nigam, Katni, respondent no.6 is the then Commissioner, respondent no.7 is Executive Engineer and respondent Nos.8 to 11 are other employees. The case of the petitioner is that he had filed a complaint case under Section 190 of the Code, before the Special Court at Katni alleging offences under Sections 379, 409, 406, 420/34 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC.) read with Se...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »