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. Dharmendra Dhurvey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3860/2013 22.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri C.K.Mishra, 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 4/10/2012 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Sessions Trial No.132/2011, whereby respondent has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30/12/2010 a report was lodged by Shivkumar Chouhan (PW1).father of the prosecutrix as to missing of his minot daughter who had left the home for college on 29/12/2010. It was mentioned that one Dharmendra Dhurve, Constable of Police Station Hoshangabad and resident of nearby block used to induce the prosecutrix and talk with her in absence of complainant. About 15 ...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ranjeet
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
M.Cr.C.No.4065/2012 22.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for the applicant-State. Heard on admission. This application for grant of leave to 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 24/2/2012 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Trial No.124/2011, whereby respondents have been acquitted of the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29/10/2010 at about 7.30 a.m., FiRs.Information Report (Ex.P/2, for short FIR.) was lodged by complainant Munna Yadav, to the effect that some unknown miscreant had killed his son Monu, who had left his home on the previous day at about 5 to 6 p.m.and the dead body was lying near Bus Stand behind the Music School. Crime No.444/10 was registered and after investigation, respondents were arrested and charge-sheet was filed. ...
Dinesh Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
1 W.P.No.13580/2013 Dinesh Dubey versus State of M.P.& ORS.22.08.2013 Shri Mahendra Pateriya learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue the appeal filed by the petitioner before the competent authority. It goes without saying that in case the petitioner files an application for urgent hearing, the appellate authority shall consider and decide the same as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition, filed by the petitioner, stands disposed of as withdrawn. C.C as per rules. ( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE mms/-...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Soukhilal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
M.Cr.C.No.11149/2012 22.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri C.K.Mishra, 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 6/7/2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai, District Panna, in Sessions Trial No.90/2011, whereby respondent has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21/2/11 at about 4 p.m., Badibai (PW1) along with her 12 year old daughter Kallubai (since deceased) had gone to Village Hinota and while she was sitting in the Village at a door, respondent came and inquired about her purpose of visiting the Village and when she informed him that she had come to meet her grandchildren, he asked her to leave and not to come again. At about 6 p.m., when she along with Kalluba...
Santosh Kuamr Vs. Smt.Kiran Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
FiRs.Appeal No ::470. / 2003 Santosh Kumar versus Smt. Kiran Bai 22.08.2013. Shri Anand Nayak for the appellant. Shri P.D.Gupta for the respondent. It is stated by Shri Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant, that the respondent/wife has died, therefore, this appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act challenging a decree passed under section 9, for restitution of conjugal rights, not stands abated. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed with liberty to the parties to invoke the provisions for setting aside the abatement in accordance with law. Certified copy as per rules. ( RAJENDRA MENo.) ( SMT. VIMLA JAIN ) JUDGE JUDGE Aks/-...
Prakash Chand JaIn Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR Single Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K.SHRIVASTAVA Writ Petition No.364/2003 PETITIONER : Prakash Chand Jain s/o Babulal Jain, R/o village Dugaria, Chhapara, Tehsil Lakhnadoun, District Seoni Versus RESPONDENTS 1 State of Madhya Pradesh through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal 2. Additional Collector, Seoni District Seoni (M.P.) 3. Naib Tehsildar, Chhapara, District Seoni (M.P.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- None for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, Government Advocate for the respondents/State. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on 22nd August, 2013) For the reasons stated in the order passed today in W.P.No.2724/2002 (Faheem Khan versus State of Madhya Pradesh and otheRs.this petition also succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 8.3.2002 (Annexu...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sandeep Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
Misc. Criminal Case No.9551/2012 22.8.2013 Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate 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 of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The corresponding judgment was passed by Ist Additional Session Judge, Tikamgarh, in S.T.No.5/2010 on 18/06/2012. As per the prosecution story, on 5.9.2009, complainant, Shivdayal Yadav made a report at Police Station, Lidhoua that his nephew, Krishnapal @ Chhotu, aged about 9 years who was playing near the school at about 6 p.m., did not return home and on searching him, he was not traceable. A missing person report was registered at S.no.8/2009. On 8.9.2009 at about 12 pm, dead body of Krishnapal @ Chhotu was found in the Kamli Kua which was identified by Shivdayal Yadav. During investigation, the offence was registered against the...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sunil Jadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
M.Cr.C.No.10163/2012 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 31/5/2012 passed by Special Judge (under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989) at Sehore, in Special Case No.80/2011, whereby respondent has been acquitted of the offences under Sections 363, 376, 366-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC.) and Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Act. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10/6/2011, Rajkumaribai lodged a missing person report to the effect that her daughter viz. the prosecutrix, a member of scheduled caste, aged about 17 years and 8 months, was missing since yesterday from 2.30 p.m.During investigation, prosecutrix was found to be a minor. It also surfac...
Nandram Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
W.P.No.13542/2013 (Nandram Ahirwar versus State of MP and otheRs.22.08.2013 Shri Subodh Kathar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned P.L.for the State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 24.05.2013 which is an order passed in review by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Bhopal Range (City) Bhopal by which the order of punishment dated 06.06.2012 issued by the Superintendent of Police has been set aside and a departmental enquiry has been directed to be instituted against the petitioner, pursuant to which a charge sheet has also been issued to the petitioner on 01.07.2013. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the decisions of this court rendered in the cases of Basanti Gaur versus State of MP and others 2009(4) MPLJ 635 Angad Singh Rathore versus State of MP and others 2010(1) MPLJ 17 and Rajendra Kumar Chaturvedi versus State of M...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Madan Singh Gurjar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
Cr.A.No.2106/2010 & M.Cr.C.No.11210/2010 22.8.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri S.K.Gangrade, Advocate for the appellant in Cr.A.No.2106/10. Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for the respondent no.1-State in Cr.A.No.2106/10, as well as, for applicant-State in M.Cr.C.No.11210/10. Heard on admission. Judgment, under challenge, being the same, this common order shall govern the disposal of aforementioned appeal and application for leave to appeal. Cr.A.No.2106/10 has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code.).whereas M.Cr.C.No.11210/10 is an application, under Section 378(3) of the Code, against the judgment dated 11/8/10 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad, in Sessions Trial No.227/08, whereby the accused persons have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 307 in alternative 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).while all the accused persons, except Suresh and Bharat, have been conv...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »