Madhya Pradesh Court September 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. Siraj
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.9212/2012 25.09.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri S.S.Bisen, 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 15/5/2012 passed by VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No.575/2010, whereby respondents namely Siraj; Chhote alias Ajaj; Mohammad Athar and Gyan Singh have been respectively acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 294, 326 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC).294, 324/34, 326/34 & 506 of the IPC; 294, 324, 326/34 & 506 of the IPC and 294, 324/34 & 326/34 of the IPC. Prosecution case, in brief is that, on 14/4/2010 at about 11 p.m., when complainant Pavan Dhakad along with his friends Sachin and Shanu was taking dinner in a Hotel located at Jhulelal Market Square, Gandhinagar, Bhopal, respondent Gyan Singh started abusin...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jagdish Kori
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
Misc. Criminal Case No.1745/2012 25.9.2013 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 the respondents namely Jagdish Kori, Achhelal Kori, Bhaiyalal Kori and Ramdas Kori of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304 B and in alternative 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC').The corresponding judgment was passed by Sessions Judge, Panna, in Sessions Trial No.21/2011 on 18.7.2011. Marriage of Indibai (since deceased) was solemnized with respondent no.1 Jagdish Kori six years prior to the date of incident. As per the prosecution story, respondent Nos.1 to 4 were involved in subjecting Indibai to cruelty and harassment due to non satisfaction of demand for dowry and, ultimately, on 29/7/2010, under suspicious circumstances, dead body of Indibai was found hanging in her matrimonial...
Chetan Raghuvanshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON. SHRI JUSTICE G.S. SOLANKI Criminal Revision No.709/2013 Chetan Raghuvanshi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Shri Subodh Kathar, Advocate for the applicant. Shri C.K. Mishra, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. ORDER (25.09.2013) This revision petition has been preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2012, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amarwara, District Chhindwara in S.T. No.281/2012, whereby charge under Sections 147, 294, 341, 307/34 and 333 of the I.P.C. has been framed against this applicant and also against co-accused.2. Facts in short, are that on 17.07.2012, when complainant Radheshyam Raghuwanshi was going alongwith his colleague Lalit Malani in the vehicle Maruti Van No.28-BD-1090. It is alleged that applicant and other co-accused persons restrained them on the way and took out Lalit Malani from the aforesaid vehicle. It is f...
Rajendra Singh Sengar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.14833/2012 Rajendra Singh Sengar. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri Surya Pratap Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents. ORDER (25.9.2013) The petitioner, a retired Senior Horticulture Development Officer, has approached this Court by filing this writ petition claiming interest on the amount of retiral dues which were belatedly paid to him in the year 2012 on different dates. It is contended that the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2006. Prior to the date of retirement, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. The said enquiry remained pending for a considerable long time. Ultimately, after the retirement of the petitioner final order was passed on 20.10.2011 exonerating the petitioner from the charges of embezzlement and closing the enquiry. Because of such a departmental enquir...
Ramkhelawan Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.11650/2013 M.Cr.C.No.11650/2013 25.9.2013 Shri G.S.Ahluwalia, counsel for the applicant. Shri S.D.Khan, G.A.for the State/respondent. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 17.8.2013 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar in S.T.No.26/2013, whereby the application under section 311 of the Cr.P.C.as well as the application under section 91 of the Cr.P.C.were dismissed. The facts of the case, in short, are that, the applicant is facing a trial for offence punishable under section 376 of IPC and other offences. The witnesses were examined. The applicant has moved an application under section 311 of the Cr.P.C.to recall the witness Dhanpat Patel and the prosecutrix and therefore, the application under section 311 of the Cr.P.C.was moved. Similarly, it was applied that ossification test of the prosecutrix may be performed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed both the applications. After considering the submissions made ...
Karu Survanshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
1 Cr.A. No.451 of 2007 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH KAKADE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.451 OF2007APPELLANT : Karu Suryawanshi S/o late Madho Suryawanshi, Caste: Kirad, Aged:52. years, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o Village Amadoh, Thana Saikheda, Tahsil Multai, District Betul (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENT : State of Madhya Pradesh through Incharge P.S. A.J.A.K. Betul, Tahsil & District Betul (M.P.). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Smt. Nirmala Raikwar Advocate for the appellant. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate for the respondent /State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment reserved on :25. 07.2013 Judgment delivered on :25. 09.2013 (J UD GM E NT ) Appellant Karu Suryawanshi has filed this appeal under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.02.2007 passed by the learned Special (Sess...
Rajman Biyar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
Writ Petition No.8590/13 25.09.2013 Shri Mahesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. The petitioner-father-in-law of respondent no.4, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ for the following relief:- (1) The Honble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction in an appropriate nature directing the respondent concerned to consider and decide the application vide Annexure-P-4 forthwith. (2) The Honble Court be also pleased to issue any other writ or directions deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the couRs.of arguments on admission, I am apprised by the petitioners counsel that at the instance of the respondent no.4, some proceedings under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, for issuing the succession certificate in her favour with respect of the sum of Land Acquisition Award, is pending and besides this, at the instan...
Kamlesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
1 W.P No.16274 of 2013 25.9.2013 Shri Ravindra Parashar, counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt Sheetal Dubey, GA for the respondent/State. The petitioners stating themselves to be the Kotwars of respective villages have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ for the following reliefs :- (a) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to command the respondents to decide the petitioners claim/ representations in the light of notifications dated 3/3/2010 (Anenx.P/3) as has been directed in order Annex.P-4 passed in W.P.No.939/09. (b) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be given to the petitioneRs.in the interest of justice. 2. In the couRs.of arguments on admission by referring the copy of IA No.13618/13 petitioners counsel said that he has filed this IA along with copy of the order dated 14.8.13 passed by Collector Narsingpur in Revenue Case No.107-B/121-12-13 whereby the application of some oth...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Udaybhan Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1742/2012 25.09.13 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 20/9/2011 passed by Special Judge (under the Madhya Pradesh Daikaiti Evam Vypharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 (for short the Act)).Panna, in Sessions Trial No.3/2011, whereby respondent Udaibhan alias Gauri Yadav has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 395 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC) read with 11/13 of the Act, 395 read with 397 of the IPC read with 11/13 of the Act, 307 read with 149 and 332 read with 149 of the IPC, though he was convicted under Section 225 of the IPC and sentenced accordingly. Prosecution case, in brief is that, on 22/3/06 when Head Constable Ramchandra Singh and Constables Dharmendra Singh and Ma...
Smt. Kiran Bai Vs. Gulab Chand
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
MA No.418 / 2013. 25/09/2013. Mr.Rahul Rawat, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Devendra Shukla, P.L.for the State. Heard on admission. This appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (U) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order of remand dated 30.10.2012 (Annexure-A/1) passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.1-A/12 by 3rd Additional District Judge, Raisen (MP) by allowing the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and deciding the suit afresh after affording opportunity to the defendants after considering the document which is the certified copy of the sale deed and further considering the fact that property mentioned in the sale deed is whether self acquired property of defendant No.1 Gulabchand or not. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned trial court has considered the factual position and held that the suit property is undivided Hindu family property, therefore, the learned lower appellate court is not justified in remanding the case for de...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »