Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jameer Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
Misc. Criminal Case No.10613/2012 Per B.D.Rathi,J 22.8.2013 Shri C.K.Mishra, Government Advocate for the applicant- State. Heard on admission. This is an application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code. for short) against the acquittal of respondent no.1, Jameer Khan of the offence punishable under Section 302 in alternative 302 read with 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 (for short the Act.).respondent no.2, Jai Prakash of the offence punishable under Section 302 in alternative Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC and respondent no.3, Shakir @ Akela of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC in alternative Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC and Section 3(2) (5) of the Act. The corresponding judgment was passed by Special Sessions Judge (under the Act).at Tikamgarh, in S.T.No...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Raghunath
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
M.Cr.C.No.8171/2012 22.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General, for the applicant-State. Heard on admission. This application for grant of leave to appeal has been preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 30/4/2012 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa, in Sessions Trial No.17/2012, whereby respondent has been acquitted of the offences under Sections 498A, 304B or 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC.) and Section 3 read with 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Marriage of Binabai (since deceased) was solemnized with respondent Raghunath in January 2011. Prosecution case, in brief, is that, respondent, while suspecting her chastity, persistently subjected Binabai to cruelty and harassment due to not satisfaction of demand for dowry, and ultimately she was admitted in a Hospital at Khandwa for treatment of burn injuries, where, she breathed her last...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Nathuram Pidaha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
Misc. Criminal Case No.8173/2012 Per B.D.Rathi,J 22.8.2013 Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advovate General for the applicant-State. Heard on admission. This is an application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code. for short) against the acquittal of respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC').The corresponding judgment was passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai, District Panna, in S.T.No.155/2009 on 28.4.2012. As per the prosecution story, respondent nos.1 and 2 namely Nathuram Pidaha and Chandrabhan Singh, while respectively working as Principal and President of Government Primary School, Murach and Parents Teachers Association Murach, on 4/2/2006, embezzled the sum allotted for Mid-day meals in the Primary School by withdrawing an amount of Rs.21,500/- in place of Rs.1500/- from the Kshetriya Grameen Bank, Brach Pawai. Learned Deputy Advocate General sub...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Raju
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
M.Cr.C.No.9543/2012. 22.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the applicant-State. This application for grant of leave to appeal has been preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 08/05/2012 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa in Sessions Trial No.168/2011, whereby respondents have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 304B in alternative 302 in alternative 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Marriage of Chandabai (since deceased) was solemnized with respondent no.1 Raju, son of respondent Nos.2 and 3, on 13/2/06. In the wedlock, they were blessed with two daughteRs.Prosecution case, in brief, is that respondents were involved in subjecting Chandabai to cruelty and harassment due to not satisfaction of demand for dowry, as well as, for not begetting a son a...
Ram Prasad Kori Vs. Smt. Savitri Bai Kori
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
F.A.No.337/1999 22/8/2013: Shri T.K.Modh, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent even though served. When the matter was taken up on 23.7.2013 none appeared for the respondent and therefore, SPC was issued to the respondent. Inspite thereof none is appearing for the respondents. As respondent is not appearing inspite of notice, we proceed ex- parte against the respondent. Challenge in this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act is made to an order dated 16.4.99 passed by the FiRs.Additional District Judge, Shahdol in case No.60A/98 by which an application filed by the appellant husband under Section 13 for dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion has been dismissed. Fact relevant for decision of the appeal goes to show that marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year 1996 and on the ground that the respondent wife has deserted him since January 1998 and has also committed cruelty by harassing him in refusing ...
Dr.K.N.Namdeo Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavid. and or
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.509/2003 Dr. K.N.Namdeo versus Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya and otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.None for the petitioner. Shri P.N.Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 & 2. ORDER (22.8.2013) This writ petition was filed in the year 2003 by a retired Professor of the respondent No.1-University, claiming benefit of retiral dues. It is contended that the petitioner was granted the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as CAS for brevity) vide order dated 24.1.2002, and accordingly, his salary was to be fixed in the pay scale of Rs.16,400-22,400/- with effect from 27.7.1998. However, till the date of retirement this benefit was not extended to the petitioner and he was made to superannuate with effect from 30.9.2002. As a result of not finalising the claim of grant of CAS, not revising the salary of the petitioner, his retiral dues were not fixed not paid, therefore, th...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Santosh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2904/2012 22.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri S.K.Kashyap, Government Advocate for the applicant- State. Heard on admission. This application for grant of leave to appeal has been preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 21/11/2011 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni, in Sessions Trial No.185/2010, whereby respondents have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22/8/08 a report was lodged by Dev Kumar (PW3).son-in-law of Devi Singh as to missing of his father-in-law who had left the home on 27/7/08 without informing anybody. Subsequently, Garun Singh, brother of Devi Singh, upon an information that a bundle of clothes was lying on a Mahua Tree, reached the Jungle and identified the clothes to be that of Devisingh. He, accordingly, informed the Police and when Poli...
Jagnnath Singh Vs. Madhya Pradesh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
W.P.No.13551 / 2013 (Jagannath Singh ...Vs...M.P.Rajya Van Vikas Nigam & ors.) 22-08-2013 Heard Shri Manot Chandurkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on the question of admission. The learned counsel, after arguing at length, submits that the respondent/authorities be directed to consider and decide the objections, Annexure P-5, dated 19-7-2013 raised by the petitioner while proceeding further in the matter pursuant to Annexure P-4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's objections regarding entitlement for regularization are not being considered and, therefore, the authorities be directed to do so. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, without entering into the merits of the case or making any comments on the entitlement of the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that on petitioners furnishing a copy of the order passed today alongw...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Chandan Ahirwar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2942/2012 22.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri S.K.Kashyap, Government Advocate for the applicant- State. Heard on admission. This application for grant of leave to appeal has been preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 30/11/2011 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, in Sessions Trial No.38/11, whereby respondent no.1 Chandan has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 326/34 in alternative 326, 324/34 in alternative 324, 323/34 and 294 (on two counts) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).while respondent no.2 Banti alias Vinot has been acquitted of the offences under Sections 326/34, 324/34, 323/34, 294 (on two counts) and 506 Part II (on two counts) of the IPC. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28/12/10 at about 8.30 p.m., respondent no.1 Chandan, without any reason, started abusing his neighbour Geetabai Ahirwar and upon her objection...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Deep Kumar @ Deepak
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
Misc. Criminal Case No.9166/2012 22.8.13 Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the applicant-State. Heard on admission. Considering the reasoning assigned for discarding the incriminating evidence brought on record, the application is allowed and leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal is granted. Case be registered as Criminal Appeal. Issue bailable warrant for a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) against each one of respondent Nos.1 and 2 namely Deep Kumar alias Deepak and Mamta alias Rajkumari Jaiswal to secure their presence before this Court on 8/10/13. Appeal be listed for consideration on the question of admission on 8/10/13. (AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI) JUDGE JUDGE (and)...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »